The sitting begun and suspended on Monday 23October2000 was resumed at 10.30am (MrSpeaker in the Chair).

Assembly: Unparliamentary Language

Mr Speaker: During Oral Answers to Questions yesterday a Member described, from a sedentary position, another Member as being a liar. This is clearly unparliamentary language, and I must ask the Member to withdraw the comments made. The Member was MrIan Paisley Jnr, and I ask the Member to withdraw his comments.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me. You know that in all conscience I cannot withdraw something which I know to be the truth.

Mr Speaker: I must advise the Member that if he does not withdraw the comment I will order him to leave the Assembly and its precincts for the rest of the day.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I accept your ruling, Mr Speaker.
The Member withdrew from the Chamber.

Mr Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In addition to the ruling that you have made, will it be possible to make a ruling on the untruthful and wholly false assertions made by the Minister of Education at Question Time yesterday as they have no basis whatsoever in reality?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member knows that by proceeding in the way that he is doing he is merely compounding the unfortunate circumstances which we have already experienced.

Programme for Government

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that they wish to make a statement on the Programme for Government.

Rt Hon David Trimble: With permission, Mr Speaker, we would like to make a statement on the draft Programme for Government on behalf of the Executive. In accordance with paragraph20 of strand one of the Belfast Agreement the Executive agreed a draft programme on 16October, incorporating the agreed budget and linking this to policies and programmes. We are therefore laying this Programme for Government before the Assembly for scrutiny and for future approval, after examination in the Committees, on a cross- community basis.
Today’s statement is the start of a process of consultation. The statement focuses on the principles underlying the programme rather than on the detail of its contents, although we will say something on the content later in the statement. We also wish to set out proposals on how we might take forward our discussion on the draft programme, how these proposals relate to the Assembly’s scrutiny of the draft budget, and how these two processes can be brought together in the new year in a final agreed document. The letter to the Speaker, which Members received last week, explained how the Programme for Government and the budget could be progressed through the stages of Assembly scrutiny and debate.
As Members are aware, this is an important task, which we will return to each year. In future years, with less pressure on time and with more experience, I believe we can create a longer cycle, allowing more time for consideration and reflection. This year, inevitably, we have all faced severe time constraints, and we are very grateful for the Assembly’s assistance in this process.
The document is a first approach to the important task of linking the work of Departments and agencies, creating a new sense of priority and direction. We believe we have started to map out a new agreed direction addressing the real problems that Northern Ireland faces and creating more accountable government.
We believe that this process is unique — certainly in the history of Northern Ireland — in producing the equivalent of the Queen’s Speech and a multi-party manifesto rolled into one. It is a comprehensive document covering the aims, priorities and intended actions of the new Administration, and it sets out the context for the draft budget. Transparency is one of the watchwords, and, as in Scotland and Wales, the public will now be in a good position to see, with some precision, what this Administration is about. As we develop the programme with targets for the implementation of actions, that transparency will be extended to allow people to assess our effectiveness in delivering the programme. We believe this is a first in shining new light into the darker recesses of government.
This document, however, is not the last word. It reflects the best efforts of the Executive and officials in the time available. We have necessarily made choices, sometimes difficult choices, to fit our aspirations within the resources available. The last word, however, resides in this Assembly. This draft programme is the start of a phase of consultation with the Assembly and of subsequent refinement. We will also seek the views of other organisations wishing to contribute to our future to produce a final document for the Assembly’s approval.
It is necessarily a complex document. It contains over 230 actions, set out in over 30 sections. The majority of these actions are covered by the budget proposals for next year, which, following consultation, will need the Assembly’s final agreement by December. As we explained in our letter, we therefore propose that we should hold a longer debate in mid-November to receive the Assembly’s broad views on the programme, once the Committees have had an initial opportunity to consider the document. In particular, the Assembly may wish to give its view on whether the programme provides an appropriate basis for the budget. If Committees have views on the programme and on the many specific actions included in it, which have implications for expenditure in 2001/02, we would ask that these are fitted into their consideration of the budget. A revised budget will then be presented to the Assembly and voted on before Christmas.
As individual Committees scrutinise the programme, and also consider their budget, Ministers will be able to explain the details of their actions more fully. The Assembly will have until January to let the Executive have its views on the wider programme. We will then consolidate revisions to the budget with those to the Programme for Government and will present a consolidated programme to the Assembly for final agreement.
The Programme for Government is central to co-operation between the different parties to the agreement in Northern Ireland. Through their Pledge of Office, all Ministers must participate with their colleagues in the preparation of a Programme for Government, and co-operate within the framework of that programme when it is agreed in the Executive Committee and endorsed by the Assembly.
The document therefore provides an open statement, to be democratically agreed through the Assembly, of the policies and actions that bind all Ministers together for the better government of Northern Ireland. It will become the joint agreed declaration of policy of this Administration, which all members of the Administration will need to support. In turn, the public can have a clear understanding of what they can expect from the new Administration. After almost 30 years of unaccountable direct rule, it will be a contract between the Government and the public.
I hope that this programme can be of value to other organisations — the voluntary sector, business groups, trade unions and others who also have an important role to play in the future of Northern Ireland. I hope that this programme, as we develop it in the coming months and years, will help to provide a focus for the future of Northern Ireland, helping all to work together effectively.
The role of the Government, in many fields, is to set out a framework incorporating vision and direction within which others can act. This programme is designed to provide such a framework. The end result must be greater trust and understanding between all levels of government and the public. That will be essential for securing peace and deepening our democracy.
We also need to create an agreed sense of priority about our overall policies to enable us to ensure that all Departments contribute to that agreed vision and direction. The Administration is not made up of 11 separate entities, each run by individual Ministers looking after totally discrete policy areas. That would lead to inefficiency and frustration. We have all dealt with constituency cases in the past where resources were poorly spent, co-ordination was poor and different Departments were at loggerheads.
The public, frankly, do not care which Department solves the problems they are seeking to be answered. What they want is good quality services and effective policies, meeting real needs. For this reason our key policy areas are cross-cutting in nature, requiring different Departments and agencies to co-operate for the benefit of the public. In many cases it is only when a number of Departments get together, agree a common vision and set out policies which complement one another that we achieve the significant gains that are needed.
As a first step in achieving joined-up government we devote a significant part of this Programme for Government to setting out priority policy areas, broadly defined, where we wish Departments to work together to improve society. The Deputy First Minister will elaborate on the nature and content of those priorities in a moment.
To develop these priorities, the Executive is considering establishing a limited number of sub-committees to take forward policy work on key cross-cutting policy areas so that the relevant Ministers can work together to review the effectiveness of policies and, where necessary, adopt new innovative approaches. The work of developing cross-cutting priority areas will be assisted by the evolving role of a new feature in managing public spending. These are the Executive programme funds. These will be managed directly by the Executive as opposed to being pre-allocated to Departments. They will seek to assist the development of new policies and programmes and new improved services as well as dealing with major infrastructure projects.
The main policy areas we propose that they should cover are: social inclusion and community regeneration in order to combat poverty and support communities; service modernisation to promote efficiency and innovation within the public sector; new directions to encourage the development of innovative new policies tackling important areas; infrastructure and capital renewal to support the modernisation of our increasingly dated transport and other infrastructure in partnership with the private sector; and finally — but by no means least important — to support and protect children in need and young people at risk.
The focus of these Executive programme funds will be on policy and service innovation, on tackling weakness in infrastructure and on ensuring effective targeting of programmes on groups and areas. Proposals will either be of major regional importance or cross- cutting in their nature. The funds should in many cases help lever in other resources, from a number of other Departments or even elsewhere, to create new funding bases for cross-cutting policies.
In the first year of this programme, starting in April 2001, the Executive proposes that £16 million be devoted to these funds. With the experience of the first year of this initiative behind us, we then propose to rapidly increase the value of these funds to £100 million in 2002-2003 and £200 million in 2003-2004.
One aspect I wish to stress in the Programme for Government is the desire to concentrate resources on real needs in Northern Ireland. We have to be realistic. We have to make clear the challenges we face. We have to make clear that we will not solve all deep-rooted problems overnight. It has not been either possible or sensible to attempt to make all of the fundamental changes we wish in the first few months of this new Administration. Major changes need to be carefully planned and thought out. That is why the programme contains a significant number of major policy reviews which will influence the direction of policy in important ways in future years.
I will not list all of these reviews. There are too many to do so briefly, but I will mention a few. There are ongoing reviews of the structure of selection, of secondary education and also of student finance. There are also reviews of transport strategy and, most importantly, of road safety, which it is hoped will maintain a reduction in deaths and injuries on our roads. We will introduce a review of public administration to ensure, among other things, that the costs of administration are minimised. In addition, a number of new strategies are to be developed, including those for public health, sustainable development and energy markets.
As these reviews are completed and considered by both individual Ministers and the Executive, policy in Northern Ireland will increasingly be tailored to our unique circumstances and to reflect the needs of our people.
While we have seen a significant increase in finances, those finances are still limited. A budget increase of 4·7% in real terms provides some room to manoeuvre, but it does not enable us to do all that we would have wished. We must still make choices. Making choices is not easy. It requires freeing up resources from aspects of expenditure considered less essential to allow us to do more in those areas of policy we view as particularly pressing. Increased flexibility of this sort requires a sea change in the culture of departmental administration, and this we are determined to achieve.
As an important start in this direction we intend that the Programme for Government will include a set of targets associated with the specific actions listed under each priority area. These targets will be incorporated in public service agreements, which themselves form a contract between individual Departments and the Executive as a whole. This will clarify what services are provided for the resources received. Public service agreements are new to Northern Ireland. They will introduce a culture change in the delivery of services, a culture change focusing not only on inputs into Departments but also on the outputs of services to the public.
The detail of the public service agreements will be developed between now and January 2001 and will be made available to the Assembly to consider in a consolidated programme in advance of the final debate in February. Our aim will be to develop the scope of public service agreements in future years which, in turn, will develop accountable and efficient government.
Of course, if we had more money, we could have achieved more. We do not believe the Barnett formula that determines the funds available to this Administration is fair. The formula strictly applied does not take account of above average needs in allocating additional funds. As a result, Northern Ireland is falling behind the rest of the United Kingdom in terms of increases to expenditure, even if we are still ahead in terms of per capita spending unadjusted for need. We fought hard in the summer and won certain concessions on this, and we have made clear to the Treasury that we will continue to fight for change. However, it must be realised that we will not resolve the Barnett formula in the short term.
Those are some general considerations affecting the Programme for Government. The Deputy First Minister will now outline the content of the programme.

Mr Seamus Mallon: May I also thank all of my ministerial Colleagues, their Departments and their officials for their work on the Programme for Government.
In developing this programme the Executive looked at the key challenges which we face and where needs were greatest. As we analysed each problem we also considered how to work together to create real change in both the short term and the long term.
The first obvious challenge is that here in Northern Ireland we have a divided society emerging from thirty years of conflict. The Good Friday Agreement gives us the necessary framework and principles, and creates the real prospect of enduring peace and stability. We will build on this through the Programme for Government. In the Executive we are developing a capacity to work together and have evolved a broad consensus on the importance of equality, human rights, social justice and culture diversity. However, we do not underestimate the challenges ahead.
There are deep divisions in our society, with high levels of distrust and segregation in housing, in education, and socially. We must develop approaches which help to resolve conflict. We must promote partnership and trust right across the community.
There also remain considerable inequalities within our society, particularly in unemployment, which must be addressed. There are also significant levels of deprivation, high long-term unemployment and high dependency on social security benefit. We must address urban deprivation and recognise that our rural areas face major challenges.
All of these challenges point to a priority area for action, which we describe as "growing as a community". It covers not just equality, human rights and the needs of victims, but also tackles poverty and social disadvantage. We also place a particular emphasis on the needs of children, the renewal of our most disadvantaged neighbourhoods, and on tackling divisions through improved community relations, and respecting and celebrating cultural diversity.
This is a massive canvas on which Departments must work together. We will all see in the Programme for Government how we have examined each area and set out over 60 different actions for the coming year, including areas where we will start to develop new policies. Some of our new commitments include implementing all equality schemes, as approved by the Equality Commission; achieving all the targets and actions in the new targeting social need (TSN) plans and developing them annually; reviewing under-representation in the senior Civil Service; providing over 500 places for work-related programmes for the disabled and adapting 1,500 houses to meet their needs; a new grant scheme for households suffering from fuel poverty; a taskforce on unemployability to reduce long-term unemployment; and proposals to introduce free travel on public transport for older people.
The Executive programme social inclusion/community regeneration fund and the EU structural funds will play a major role in support of this priority, assisting action against poverty and supporting community measures in both urban and rural settings, as well as actions on community relations and cultural diversity.
The second area that we see as a priority is working for a healthier people. We have the third youngest population of all the regions in the European Union, together with a growing elderly population. Overall, our health record has not been good. Death rates from coronaries and some cancers are among the highest in western Europe. Our young men are likely to die early due to accidents, and we have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy. We are concerned by the links between poor health and low incomes, and will target resources accordingly.
Of course modernising and improving hospital and primary care services are important responses, and the financial resources — an extra £150 million — have been given to them, but the major new focus of the Executive in this area will be on tackling the causes of ill health, reducing preventable disease, ill health and health inequalities by a cross-cutting public health strategy combining social intervention and education, and ensuring that factors such as the quality of our water, our air and our recreational facilities all support health.
In short, while the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has a major role in working for a healthier people, at least six other Departments have important roles to play.
Some 40 actions are set out in the Programme for Government in support of this priority. They include work to reduce waiting lists and meet winter pressures; restrictions on tobacco advertising; a new road-safety strategy; the provision of up to 50 extra specialised staff for the cancer services; an additional 230 community-care packages; and measures to reduce the misuse of drugs and alcohol.
We will use our proposed Executive Programme children’s fund to provide support for children in need and young people at risk. We will increase the coverage of the Sure Start programme in areas of social disadvantage from 11,000 to 16,000.
The third priority area for action is investing in education and skills. Our young people are an important focus for attention. However, with high rates of adult illiteracy, and with the real need for reskilling throughout our working lives, this priority is relevant to all of us. The basic right to education opens opportunities for the individual; education and training are key to our development as a society and economy.
Our education system is doing well for many of our young people. However, there are major problems of low achievement and underachievement that have to be addressed. Among the existing workforce there are too many people with few or no formal qualifications.
There are 27 specific action points covered in this priority area. They include the review of selection and student support, which will have a long-term impact on the structures of our system and on equality of opportunity. There are also actions with early effect, such as an extra 500 training places in areas of skills shortages and an extra 200 undergraduate places on top of the 4,200 places planned by 2004. We aim to fulfil the target of providing one year of pre-school education for every child by 2002-03.
The fourth priority area for action is securing a competitive economy. A modern competitive economy is central to creating an inclusive society, providing opportunity for all with new knowledge-based skilled jobs. We must face the challenge of global competition and tackle our over-dependence on declining or slow- growing industries.
Already there are signs of success. Since December the IDB has promoted 7,100 new jobs — 3,000 more than in the previous year. Manufacturing output has increased by over 7% since last year. Unemployment, at 40,100, is at its lowest level since 1984. Investors and business want to see stability and the success of the institutions to continue those trends.
In developing this priority we have taken a wide view of economic development, covering education, skills and infrastructure policy, promoting enterprise, innovation and creativity, and working to make Northern Ireland more attractive to inward investors and visitors.
If our businessmen and women are to succeed in a tough global economy and are to create the employment we need, then, as Government, we have to have to do everything we can to give them the right environment and the right cost structure to compete. That is why improved planning, good quality transport and telecommunications will be crucial. That is why good quality business services and support for research and development will be key. Through the programme all Departments will have to work effectively together to plan the new infrastructure and services for the needs of business and the public.
In many areas of our infrastructure public investment under direct rule was inadequate. We now have to tackle serious problems in areas such as roads, rail, water and sewerage. The same lack of investment is found in some of our education and health estate, also with damaging effects on our society and economy. The new executive programme infrastructure renewal fund will help us support strategic projects using, where possible, public and private partnerships. We regard infrastructure as a means to a policy end, not as an end in itself.
Under this priority we will also give a special focus to the regeneration of the rural economy in which our agriculture industry plays a key part. Its development and diversification are vital to the survival of many communities. However, access to other types of employment — to second incomes — will also be important. The development of our rural towns must be carefully considered; tourism in rural areas has got to be enhanced. The development of public services must take into account the needs of all rural areas. All relevant policies will therefore be rural-proofed.
Finally, sustainability must be a key concern. We have set out targets and programmes to protect and enhance our environment and to integrate environmental concerns into policy.
We have outlined 49 actions under this priority. Specific actions include giving Northern Ireland a world-class telecommunications infrastructure with the necessary broadband capacity, access and cost; becoming a world-class centre for e-commerce; exploiting the potential of the North/South trade and business, tourism and waterways bodies and preparing an all-island energy market strategy; agreeing and implementing regional development and regional transport strategies; eliminating the backlog in planning applications by 2002; sustaining 50 high-tech, value-added, new start-up companies each year; and implementing the beef quality initiative to increase the number of clean cattle to 180,000 per year by 2006-07. These are examples of the sustained effort that we propose in this and other areas.
Our fifth priority area for action relates to developing North/South, East/West and international relations. Since devolution the role of dealing with other Administrations has fallen to the Executive. We intend to play this role to the full. We will use the structures set in place by the agreement to the maximum benefit of Northern Ireland, and to contribute to the development of our neighbours. The Programme for Government will be an important tool of communication in this process.
The North/South Ministerial Council, and the implementation bodies and areas of co-operation, must continue to deliver tangible benefits. Immediate tasks include completion of cross-cutting studies on barriers to North/South mobility — living and working — and on enhancing the competitiveness of the two economies and using the present round of European funding to promote North/South co-operation.
In the East/West structures the Executive will be leading work on transport issues and pursuing the fuel tax issue.
Some of the things that will need to be done are outside our control. Some issues — taxation, for example — are not devolved, while others are decided at European or international level. We will develop effective links in the European institutions by establishing an office in Brussels in the coming months, and in North America — so important for investment — we will better co-ordinate our activities to take full account of successful devolution. We will pay special attention to improving our image internationally with, for example, strategies to secure high-profile sporting and cultural events for Northern Ireland and to help support Belfast’s bid to become the European City of Culture 2008.
In the final section of the programme we have set out key internal governmental issues that we must tackle if we are to create the quality of public services that the public needs. We will modernise, through the e-government programme and work on the continuous improvement of services, with support from the new Executive programme funds. We will examine decentralisation and public procurement policy, taking account of a number of factors, including their impact on equality of opportunity. We will seek to work as a team with local government, the social partners, and the voluntary and community sector.
We need to explore new ways of financing public services to enable us to tackle the poor infrastructure we inherited from direct rule and to ensure that all public sector services are used to cut down on fraud. In this draft programme, we have made some difficult choices, allocating scarce resources between competing priorities. But ultimately it is the Assembly that will decide. Out of it will come a better programme, with a stronger democratic mandate.
The key point is that these choices are being made here, through the democratic process, and that a local, accountable Government is heading the change. The hand-over of the draft programme is a defining moment in the life of these institutions. Let us not waste the opportunity we have been given to write our own script and to truly serve the people who have elected us.
In conclusion, on behalf of the Executive, we commend the draft Programme for Government to the Assembly.

Mr Speaker: Members will know that a one-hour limit for questions on a statement is given in Standing Orders. Members and Ministers should be as succinct as possible because a very large number of Members wish to ask questions.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I thank the First Minister and Deputy First Minister for their statement. This is the first plan for a devolved Government here in 25 years. If devolution is to make a positive difference — as it can do — it should achieve joined-up government. What criteria will be used to allocate the so-called Executive programme funds?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Member mentioned that this is the first programme for the administration of Northern Ireland that has been drawn up by elected representatives of Northern Ireland for nearly three decades. That is a very significant achievement, about which we should be very pleased and proud. I hope that the community appreciates that, for the first time in 25 years, Northern Ireland’s elected representatives are ahead of the game in making decisions and choices.
The Executive programme funds are a significant new development — the Executive will handle collectively a significant and increasing amount of resources. This will help enormously to enhance the collective responsibility of the Administration. We are proposing five different programme funds, and the amount of money allocated to each is, I must emphasise, merely indicative. We are feeling our way on this, but we hope that the programme funds will become major levers for change, particularly in years two, three and thereafter.
With regard to way the programme funds will operate and the criteria to be applied, a number of principles will govern the distribution of money. We want to promote policy and service innovation, to tackle weaknesses in infrastructure and to target the areas, groups and individuals in greatest need. Consequently, the programme funds will be used to support the most important programmes and projects which will assist the development of actions across Departments or provide resources to support an individual departmental activity. The funds should help lever in other resources from other Departments, or elsewhere, and, I hope, will create new funding bases for cross-cutting programmes.

Dr Joe Hendron: I congratulate the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on the production of this historic programme for Government. I am very pleased with what I have heard.
There are major inequalities in our society: in health, in education and among the massive number of unemployed people. The principle of targeting social need (TSN) is very important to Members and to the people of Northern Ireland. Bearing this in mind, what action has been taken to ensure that new targeting social need is reflected in the Programme for Government?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the Assemblyman for his question. New TSN has underpinned and informed the Programme for Government and has shaped its priorities. Ministers agreed that it was particularly important that the new TSN action plans be integrated into the Programme for Government. For that reason, in the draft programme all Departments have committed themselves to implementing all of the actions and targets in their soon-to-be-published new TSN action plans. These plans will be reviewed each year, and there will annual reports on progress with the full evaluation of policy in the year 2002.
The draft programme also explicitly mentions many key new TSN actions and targets. These include building socio-economic disadvantage into the funding formula for the resource element of the new general exchequer grant for district councils; delivery of comprehensive regeneration strategies for the most disadvantaged communities in our two major cities; and establishing partnership between the community, voluntary, private and public sectors in the most disadvantaged areas in the form of a neighbourhood regeneration taskforce. A further target is to ensure that health and public services boards implement new TSN action plans to tackle inequalities in the administration of resources to the victims of accidents, cancers, circulatory disease and infant mortality.
New TSN will also be considered in policy reviews such as the review of decentralisation of Civil Service accommodation. Particular regard will also be had to new TSN in the allocation of executive programme funds. The amount of money available from these funds is projected to rise quickly from £16 million in the year 2001-2002, to £200 million by 2003-2004. Ensuring that these funds advance new TSN aims and objectives is therefore of particular importance. One of the focuses of the funds will ever be to ensure effective targeting of programmes at the individuals, groups and areas in greatest needs.

Mr Edwin Poots: The Programme for Government has a lot of meaningless statements in it, and once one removes a lot of the verbiage and refines the details, one finds that the First Minister’s scriptwriters have failed to cover up the all-Ireland nature of the current process. I see one North/South body after another, whether it be language, health, road safety, tourism, trade, co-operation, strategic communications — the list goes on and on.
We also note that bureaucracy has been increased rather than decreased here. Why have quangos not been dealt with? We have now found that a new North/South Civic Forum is to be set up.
Who will monitor the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister? Will that be allocated to the Committee of the Centre or to a variety of Statutory Committees?

Rt Hon David Trimble: The Member has mentioned three different points. His first point is wholly erroneous, so I think things have to be put into perspective. There are of course several areas of North/South co-operation which are significant and which will bring practical benefits; we have already mentioned a few of those. I will give one example; the encouragement of an all-Ireland energy market is extremely important to our efforts to bring down energy costs in Northern Ireland, and that is critical for Northern Ireland industry. That will be of significant benefit to us, so instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to this, Members should look at things on their merit and put them into context.
I do not know if the Member actually researched this, but the expenditure of the Northern Ireland budget on North/South co-operation next year is £11million. Now put that in the context of £5·5billion of total expenditure. I think that says it all.
With regard to quangos, the Member will have heard reference to the review of public administration, which we hope to get underway before long. It is within that context that the issue of quangos will be addressed. We want to examine public administration, and we want to see what can be done to make the system more efficient, both in terms of the delivery of services and of the cost involved. It is axiomatic that throughout the period of direct rule there was a growth of quangos. Some were needed, and others were simply set up to fill the democratic deficit.
That democratic deficit is now filled by this institution and, consequently, it is appropriate that we should look at the quangos concerned. On the question of the scrutiny of matters that fall within the remit of the Department of the Centre, I hope that the Member and his Colleagues on that Committee will be more effective in scrutinising the Department than he has been in addressing questions here.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. This is the first time since partition that Unionists, Nationalists and Republicans have come together to put forward a Programme for Government for administering the Six Counties, for co-operation with the rest of the island and for building an all-Ireland economy. In light of this, do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, on behalf of the Executive, agree that the eradication of the community differential in unemployment between Catholics and Protestants is an urgent priority? Will they make a statement on what specific actions and commitments there are in the Programme for Government to tackle this disparity?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I agree that this Programme for Government is highly significant as being the line of demarcation between a past which is well gone and a future that we all want to build together. I agree that tackling the unemployment differential must be a priority for this Administration. Indeed, the agreement itself commits us to the goal of progressively eliminating the differential in unemployment rates between the two communities.
The Programme for Government explicitly recognises the importance of tackling community differentials, and specific measures in it should contribute to the elimination of the differential. These include New Deal, lifelong learning and the welfare reform programme, which will give people the skills and incentives to get jobs and escape the cycle of deprivation; the New TSN action plans, which will be reviewed annually; and the establishment of a task force to reduce long-term unemployment and increase employability. There will also be new training programmes for adults with basic literacy and numeracy problems; an additional 500 training and further education places in skill shortage areas; and regeneration strategies for the most disadvantaged communities in the two major cities — something which should not be underestimated. Also included are neighbourhood regeneration task forces to reduce disadvantage in the most deprived urban areas, and the implementation of the equality schemes of public authorities in Northern Ireland, including a review of public procurement.
However, the actions needed to tackle the community differential in unemployment are also found throughout the programme itself in areas such as infrastructure and planning, and equal access to education for all.

Mr Seamus Close: I thank the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for their statement this morning and for bringing forward a draft Programme for Government to the Assembly.
I give the programme a general welcome. The public want to see devolution making a difference, and I therefore welcome the phrase in the First Minister’s statement that
"Transparency is one of its watchwords and … the public are now in a good position to see with some precision what this Administration is about."
Although there is clarity in the 230 implementation areas, I find much of the programme aspirational rather than demonstrating direct action. Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister assure the House that if this Programme for Government were fully implemented that coronary death rates and death rates from some cancers, which are now the highest in Europe, would be among the lowest in Europe?
Can they also assure the House that the number of local authorities would be reduced if this Programme for Government were implemented, and that our students would have places for tertiary-education places and not be subject to fee paying?

Mr Speaker: Order. We are having questions on the Programme for Government, but not on every aspect of it.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I appreciate the points made by the Member that some of the matters put down here are aspirational, as inevitably they will be in some respects. There are precise targets in a number of areas. This number will increase as we refine this process over the next few months by working out more precise actions and targets, something we will do through the public service agreements. When people look back on this, perhaps after a year or two, I hope they will see that the introduction of public service agreements was critical to enable us, as well as the public, to assess performance. Too often, particularly under direct rule, there was a tendency for the Administration simply to trundle on in the way it had done in the past and to think about how much extra money was going in. Extra money went in, but it was not always the case that more came out the other end, in terms of action taken and services delivered to the public.
I completely agree with the Member that we want to focus on the end product, that is the service that the public gets, because that is the most important thing. The Administration does not exist simply to serve itself and those who are employed by it. The Administration exists to deliver a service to the community, and that is the critical thing. A number of points were raised, and there are figures in here about the number of places. Whether that meets the need or not is another question that we will have to assess.
I am not going to respond to the question on local authorities because we are just starting a review on that. It would be quite inappropriate to say anything that would imply that we have a particular outcome of that review in mind. There are particular things in the area of health that we want to focus on. However, to give an assurance that we will, as a result of action taken, have the lowest rates for certain things would be quite inappropriate.
We have to realise, particularly in health, that some things are beyond our control. Northern Ireland has a remarkably high incidence of heart disease, a feature that it shares with the west of Scotland. What is the reason for that? Is it because of the present level of service in the Health Service? That is something that we can improve. Is it because of certain cultural factors, such as the incidence of poverty? We might be able to do something about that. But is it because of other cultural factors, such as diet? It is very difficult for us to change that. Is it also possible that the high level of heart disease here is because of genetic factors? There is very little we could do to affect that.

Mr Patrick Roche: There are three or four features in this statement from the First Minister that raise a fundamental question in my mind. First of all, as far as the 230 actions over the 30 sections are concerned, what is said about these actions is so vacuous as to be virtually devoid of content. There is absolutely no indication of how these objectives are going to be achieved. It is also impossible to link this statement with the budget allocations so we cannot see exactly how the budget will be used to finance this programme. Another point that follows on from all of that —

Mr Speaker: This is an opportunity for questions not for a series of statements, and the Member is about to make another one. I press him to ask a question.

Mr Patrick Roche: I will ask my question. The document does not provide a real framework for subsequent negotiation, so why has it been produced at this time? Why have we been presented with a document devoid of any real content about the problems that confront people in Northern Ireland? Is it an attempt to create the appearance that we have a working Executive when we know that this whole process is in serious crisis?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I will deal with the last question first. For the first time in almost 30 years, an Administration in the North of Ireland is planning its own Programme for Government and deciding its own budget. The Assembly is also deciding how it will deal with its representative capacity on behalf of the people of the North of Ireland. That is an important reason for producing this document now. The alternative is the type of situation that the Member seems to favour, where we would all trip up to see a visiting direct rule Minister and make representations to him in relation to the 230 actions in this programme, rather than devising it ourselves.
The Member described the 230 actions as vacuous. When he reads the programme further he will see that they are specific in a way that is almost dangerous. Indeed, their specific nature indicated some of the dangers to us, but we made a clear decision to be specific rather than vacuous about what we wanted to do.
The Member also says that there is no indication how these actions can be achieved. It is clear that they will be achieved in relation to the budget, after decisions are made in Committees and in the Assembly. When this ceases to be a draft document, it will be a Programme for Government honed on all the elements of this institution. Then it will be added to and strengthened, and given an even more specific role in relation to the points that the Member has to date failed to see.

Mr David Ervine: I give a guarded welcome to today’s statement. Nevertheless, it is an historic and significant day. It is the first time in my adult life that such a statement has been made by Northern Irish people behaving in a manner that is beneficial — I hope — to Northern Irish people.
We have heard about task forces and partnerships. We need agreement from those who have control of reserved matters. To achieve agreement on the Barnett formula, we must get people to hear our arguments. On the issue of drug and alcohol abuse, the partnership must be with those who control the security services. On the issue of children, the partnership must include the justice system, which is a reserved matter.
How confident are the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that they can achieve those agreements and partnerships? Will they acknowledge that while there are those who will attempt to let on that they are the opposition in this Chamber, there is a real and genuine opposition, ineffective so far, which must be consulted? Will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister give consideration to having proper consultation in the future with those who do not form the Government in this Chamber?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I take the Member’s last point. There is some force in his comments. In the circumstances, we did extremely well to get the document to this point. The same is true of the budgetary exercise — the two are related. In normal circumstances the programme would come before the budget, and although the budget was announced first, that does not mean that it was drawn up first. We were unable to produce the programme as a finished document in the time available, and the time pressures constrained the extent to which we could consult.
It is intended that there will be a transparent process that will make it easier to consult. One of the culture changes that needs to occur because of the nature of this Assembly and the way in which it operates is that across the whole public service, officials will have to appreciate that everything needs to be much more open than in the past. The system whereby governmental decisions emerge from a process of private consultation will have to change.
On the specific matters the Member mentioned, a great deal is already happening in terms of working together with the Government in London on reserved matters. There are a number of areas where the partnership between the devolved Administrations and the Government in London is already there. There is a joint working group between the devolved regions and the Government on the drugs issue, as there are on other issues, so we have a mechanism to deal with that.
The Member mentioned two specific areas. With regard to drugs he mentioned policing and justice matters. Of course, that is an issue that could be devolved to this body, and I personally hope that it will be devolved sooner rather than later. It is essential from the point of view of our operation on a number of matters.
On the matter of finance, one should always bear in mind that the so-called Barnett formula is not some arcane calculation. When devolution was proposed in the 1970s, it was necessary for Government to quickly think of some criterion. Joel Barnett, after whom the formula is named, was chief secretary to the Treasury at the time. He is quite prepared to tell people how he quickly drew up the formula on the back of an envelope in order to meet the crisis. Devolution did not actually occur in the 1970s, and so the Barnett formula has been there ever since.
Devolution has now occurred, and consequently we can confidently expect a serious reconsideration of the financing of the devolved Administrations. Nobody seriously expects that a 23- or 24-year-old formula can continue to be pressed into service in that situation. It is an extremely complex matter, but I expect that it will be addressed in coming years. That is the appropriate timescale. The Member can be assured that we will play a vigorous part in that consultation and re-examination.

Ms Jane Morrice: We welcome the Programme for Government and congratulate the Executive on achieving this milestone. We are particularly pleased with the recognition given to issues such as disadvantage, poverty and division in the chapter entitled ‘Growing as a Community.’ I normally look for things that are missing from a programme, and I was going to mention integrated education, but I found it on page26, and I am delighted to see that. How much of the programme ultimately depends on private finance? Secondly, in terms of consultation what flexibility is there to take on board the Committees’ recommendations, for example, on student finance?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I cannot say at this stage what funds may be available from private finance. That is something that has to be explored. It has possibilities, but, like everything else, it is not a panacea for all our problems. We will examine very carefully how we can utilise that facility in our Programme for Government, and if we find it to be advantageous, then collectively we should use it.
However, if we find that it is not, we may have to take a different position on the issue. One of the strongest points is how that and other aspects, in being dealt with by the Assembly and its Committees, will be bolstered up, added to and refined. I recommend to the Committees and the Assembly itself that the very pertinent question the Assemblylady asked be among those that they seriously consider.

Mr Speaker: Now that all the parties have had an opportunity to intervene, I appeal to Members to forgo their welcoming — or unwelcoming — perorations and stick to concise questions. Let us all hope that such questions will bring succinct answers, thus allowing as many Members as possible to participate.

Rev Robert Coulter: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall take your advice. The First Minister will be aware that, of all the bread-and-butter issues, healthcare is probably that of greatest concern to the people whom we represent. Will he assure me that standards of health care will improve through this Programme for Government?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I understand Rev Robert Coulter’s point about the important issue of health. That is the reason for the significant increase in the health budget. The increase of 7·2% raises the budget to £2·3 billion. In other words, an extra £153 million is going into health next year, and that represents a massive increase in available resources. We wish to see both an improvement in health outcomes and what we are getting from our money, and we want to make sure that management throughout the service is providing us with the best return. As I said earlier, public service agreements will be a key matter in ensuring that focus.
The question of ill health and the generally poorer levels of health enjoyed in Northern Ireland is a complex matter which cannot be improved simply through increases in funding, although we have provided them. We must look at reductions in preventable disease and at the number of road traffic accidents. We must also deal with drugs and encourage people to adopt healthier lifestyles. That is the reason for the emphasis in the Programme for Government on a new public-health strategy which will attempt to deal with health in the round.

Mr Alban Maginness: The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have referred to the historic underinvestment in infrastructure in Northern Ireland. I should like to explore that area in relation to the future of the railway network here. Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister explain the implications of the programme for this issue? Given the budgetary restraints, how can we tackle the infrastructural deficit which we have unfortunately inherited?

Mr Seamus Mallon: Both parts of the question are totally relevant. The A D Little strategic review of railway safety clearly showed the scale of investment necessary just to ensure that the existing railway system continues to operate safely. That report highlighted the fundamental need for both short-term and long-term strategic decisions to be taken about the future of railways. The railways taskforce gave us a very valuable indication of how we might start to address this issue and provided a useful framework within which initial decisions can be taken on the future of Northern Ireland’s railways.
At the first stage in the consideration of the existing network, additional funding of almost £20 million has been provided in the draft budget for 2001-2002. I believe that this signals the beginning of an investment programme which will bring the existing network up to modern safety and quality standards, and that includes the procurement of new rolling stock. As the taskforce made clear, the ten-year transport strategy provides the next key building block in developing a coherent view on this issue. We look forward to the Department’s bringing this to the Executive and the Assembly as soon as possible.
By budgeting for an infrastructure renewal fund the Executive has also started to plan how it might finance such significant developments. Any proposal must fit into the overall transportation strategy and be backed by a clear business case. We need to think in new ways. We have to see if it is possible to draw private sector funding and management disciplines into this type of investment. That is one of the key questions that this Assembly and its Committees have got to address, and we should address it as soon as we can — honestly and openly — because it will be crucial to this and other matters. That is the way we should progress, so that we can get the best value for money out of the rail system.

Mr Nigel Dodds: In trying to differentiate between spin and substance, will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister accept that there will be deep disappointment? For instance, while there is emphasis on the renewal of disadvantaged neighbourhoods and regeneration of our towns, cities and rural areas, budget allocations for that have been cut. Also, there will be a sense of disappointment that while the draft Programme for Government deals with the issue of victims, only four words can be found in a statement of 21 pages on the needs of victims.
The First Minister talks about the amount of money going to North/South bodies. Will he accept that there will be deep disappointment, resentment and opposition among the people we represent at the "North/Southery" that is rampant throughout this Programme for Government that is designed to implement the all-Ireland aspects of the Belfast Agreement? Will he accept that it is wrong to prioritise the implementation of that all-Ireland dimension instead of dealing with important areas such as children and infrastructure renewal? He should remember that every £1 million spent on all-Ireland bodies could go towards building 25 new homes for the homeless, adapting 1,000 homes for the disabled and installing central heating in 300 homes. Does he accept that many people believe that money would be better spent on those items than on all-Ireland institutions?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am surprised that the Member has returned to the issue of North/South co-operation, and I remind him of the point I made to his Colleague. If he had looked carefully at the budget, which he has had the opportunity to for over a week — not the Programme for Government, which he has had for a few brief hours only — he would have seen that the total spend on that subject next year is £11 million out of nearly £6 billion. That puts it in perspective.
If he had then looked at the specific items that the £11 million was to be spent on, he would have seen that they are good things. I talked to his Colleague about an all-Ireland energy market. That could equally be described as an all-British Isles energy market, because one of its key elements is to make sure that energy resources, particularly gas, become available throughout the island of Ireland to benefit us as well as everybody else.
I could also cite the example of the expenditure on waterways. One of the objectives — although it will take some time to come through — is to restore some canals, starting with the Ulster canal and going on to others. That will be of considerable significance to tourism, which is very important for the Northern Ireland economy. If one looked at that, one would appreciate how valuable it is. I am prepared to do a commercial for waterway holidays, having enjoyed them twice in the last three years. However, that is a significant economic sector.
As regards the question of victims, when the Member has had the opportunity to peruse the document he will see that there are five different actions in it dealing with the needs of victims. They are aspirational, in some respects, for example, putting in place a cross-departmental strategy for ensuring that the needs of victims are met. Such a strategy is very necessary, and there will be financial aspects to consider as well. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is establishing a victims unit to deal with issues of this nature. We are dealing with these problems in a practical way, rather than trying to make a totally misconceived political point, as the Member did.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat. Do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that expanding North/South co-operation can aid economic development and provide significant benefits in terms of savings and service delivery? Will they make a statement on the action, measures, targets and commitments in the Programme for Government to build on the contribution that North/South co-operation can make to our economic and social well-being? Furthermore, do they agree that the Executive could ask the Irish Government to provide additional funding for some elements of the Programme for Government?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The last part of the question appeals to me because of its political content and its mischievousness. I know that the Member will not expect me to give a definitive reply.
The establishment of the new institutions has meant that expenditure decisions are now taken in a wider context. That will produce efficiencies of scale and more effective delivery of services in both parts of Ireland. Furthermore, we expect a high level of added value from this expenditure. I will give some examples. The new trade and business development body is urgently tackling the low levels of cross-border trade in Ireland, and I expect, as does that body, a fairly immediate increase in trade levels. The special EU programmes body (SEUPB) is focusing attention on the benefits of EU programmes North and South. Anybody who is aware of the problems in the border areas will immediately recognise how effective those can be if we get them right.
The new all-Ireland tourism company, which is soon to be established, will market the whole island for foreign tourism to an unprecedented level. That should not be underestimated. The potential for tourism in Northern Ireland is enormous. The relationship with the South of Ireland through that tourism company will greatly benefit Northern Ireland. As an Assembly we should focus on increasing and developing tourism, as it is an area of great potential.
Co-operation in important areas of administration including education, health, agriculture and the environment will produce major benefits for everyone on the island. I will end by returning to the Member’s last point. It is something I find piquant, and I will certainly refer it to the relevant authorities.

Mr James Leslie: While responsibility for setting the rates of fuel taxation rests with Westminster, the First and the Deputy First Ministers will appreciate that people in Northern Ireland wonder if the Administration can do anything to ameliorate this problem. Do they have any means at their disposal to address that matter?

Rt Hon David Trimble: Unfortunately this is a complex issue. As the Member acknowledged, fuel taxation is a matter for Westminster, and, consequently, it is not directly within our gift. However, we have done what we can. Part of the Programme for Government is about developing a strategy to target lobbying for the benefit of the people. We have discussed fuel taxation with the Treasury and with Downing Street, and we have also raised the issue at the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference (BIIC). If there had been another BIIC then we would have raised the issue again, and we look forward to having the opportunity to do so.
We also have access to Brussels, where the issue can be raised in the European context, with regard to the effects of fuel taxation differentials. We have examined the problems in the Dutch border areas, where a degree of assistance was given to some sectors. Unfortunately, I am advised that we would have difficulty with the state aid rules in having the same arrangement here. However, it is an issue that we will continue to pursue.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: As a result of the troubles over the last 30 years the economy has been faced with difficulties in that potential investors have a particular perception of what things are like here. How does the Deputy First Minister intend to use the Programme for Government to change that international perception and make Northern Ireland a more competitive location for investment? More specifically, how does he intend to take advantage of the North/South dimension to assist in terms of investment?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The obvious and immediate answer is that the perception of the North of Ireland is what we make it. In respect of business and trade, people’s first reaction to what Northern Ireland is all about comes from the daily news, so if there is more stability and things become more peaceful here, there will be a greater perception that it is a place to do business in. We should not lose sight of that.
In the Programme for Government we recognise that a competitive, knowledge-based economy requires the right education, skills and infrastructure policies. I believe that they are contained in the Programme for Government.
As was mentioned in the statement, 27 specific actions have been planned in the priority area of education and skills. Business is increasingly being conducted electronically, and in order to compete effectively in the global market, we need a cutting-edge telecommunications infrastructure. The Executive will work hard to encourage this. We will also ensure that access to the opportunities provided by e-business is available to all sections of society and to all areas.
We will undertake a programme of structural maintenance for roads based on good practice treatments. In time, this will reduce the significant backlog in roads maintenance that has built up over recent months. The road infrastructure is crucially important to those wishing to invest in the North of Ireland with the sort of businesses that we hope for.
As for the second part of the question, we must strengthen gas and electricity interconnection — north, south, east and west. We need to progressively open these markets. That will help improve business competitiveness and give consumers greater choice at affordable prices. I will mention energy specifically, because the Member asked about the North/South infrastructure. We plan to take the following actions: by 31 December 2001, we will prepare an energy market strategy for Northern Ireland in an all-Ireland, all-island and European context; by April 2001, while working with our Southern counterparts, we will secure firm private-sector proposals for North/South and North/West gas pipelines; and also by April 2001, we will aim for agreement between Northern Ireland Electricity and the Electricity Supply Board on action to address the conclusions of a joint feasibility study into further interconnection between their networks.

Mr Sammy Wilson: The First Minister told the House about his holiday arrangements. He talked about the fact that he had gone sailing, but perhaps the words "selling" and "down the river" spring more to mind as we listen to him.
I want to press the First Minister on some points that my Colleagues made. I noted the glowing references that he made about North/South bodies — perhaps I got it wrong last week when I heard him threatening to withdraw from them. Assuming that his figure of £11 million is correct — and we will examine last week’s budget statement to see if he needs to apologise to the House again — will the First Minister tell us how many extra care packages we could have had over and above the 230 announced, had we not gone in for "North/Southery"?
How many training places for skills, which are in short supply, over and above the 500 announced could we have had? How quickly could pre-school places have been made available, had we not gone in for "North /Southery"?
Secondly, will the First Minister tell us why we are concentrating on the review of under-representation in the senior ranks of the Civil Service? Is he not of the vast under-representation of Protestants in the lower ranks in some Departments? Why has that been ignored in this Programme for Government?
Thirdly, a great deal of money has been announced for politically correct causes — the promotion of the Irish language, the equality industry, cultural diversity, and so on. Will the First Minister tell us how much money the Programme for Government is devoting to the promotion of the politically correct lobby in Northern Ireland?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am going to resist the temptation that the Member has put in front of me of trying to work out a definition of what is and what is not politically correct. For that reason I am not in a position to say how much has gone into the politically correct lobby. While I am sure that we may agree on many things, we may not agree on the definition of what is and what is not politically correct.
With regard to the review of senior Civil Service appointments, of course we want to see that the Civil Service broadly represents society. That is equally as important at senior level as it is at junior level. I am not in a position to comment on the question that the Member raised regarding junior ranks in the Civil Service, but I will look into it and correspond with him on the matter. One of the main objectives of the review — and I want to emphasise this — is to ensure that we get the best people at the high levels. The primary overall objective is to get the best people.
The function of the Northern Ireland Civil Service is changing, and it is changing in one very important respect that relates directly to this exercise. Through the direct rule years the Administration here largely replicated policies evolved across the water. Consequently there was not a great need in the Northern Ireland Civil Service for a capacity to think about and evolve policy. It was simply a matter of Ministers flying in and saying "Do this; do the same as we are doing in England." and of our making adjustments.
Now, of course, we will follow — and necessarily follow because of funding arrangements — the broad shape of public policy evolution as it takes place throughout the United Kingdom as a whole. However, there is now much greater scope for policy development and evolution here, and the capacity to evolve policy becomes much more important in terms of the senior appointments in the Civil Service. We need to look again at the criteria regarding appointments to ensure that people with that capacity are coming through. That is a very important feature of the exercise.
Once again, I am sorry to say, there has been a reference to North/South expenditure, and so on, and I can appreciate the little joke that the Member tried to engage in. If I may, I will use the phrases that are used in another place. It says here that the Northern Ireland contribution amounts to £11·1 million, and I can break that down with regard to the implementation bodies. Waterways Ireland costs are £2·26 million; the language body’s costs are £3·5 million; costs in respect of the food safety promotion board are £1·46 million; those in respect of the trade and business development body are £2·88 million; £0·6 million is attributable to the costs of special EU programmes body, and in respect of Loughs and Lights they are £0·44 million.
Again I make the point that that must be put in context and weighed against the expenditure elsewhere. With regard to what is happening specifically on these matters, we are going to get value for money. I have no doubt about that — and that is important. Of course the £11 million could be spent elsewhere, and I hope that we would get the same value for money if it were.
12.00

Mr Pat Doherty: A Cheann Comhairle, I welcome the publication of the draft Programme for Government. It is an important milestone in the peace process, and I congratulate the Executive on its collective effort in producing it.
Do the Ministers agree that concerted action is needed to eliminate the unequal distribution of resources and investment west of the Bann? Will they make a statement on the specific actions, measures and commitments in the Programme for Government to direct investment and investors to specific areas, for example, in my constituency of West Tyrone?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I note the latter part of the Member’s question, but I am sure that in the interest of the greater good he will allow me to concentrate on the wider aspects.
The Executive, through the Programme for Government, is committed to tackling poverty and economic and social disadvantage wherever it arises. It is clear that there are higher levels of poverty and economic disadvantage west of the Bann. Tackling that is a complex issue requiring action on a range of policies. Under the new TSN policy, Departments are committed to directing resources and efforts to areas of greatest socio-economic disadvantage defined by objective criteria of need. That involves, for example, differential grants for industrial development in disadvantaged areas and encouragement to investors. In the Programme for Government, Departments commit themselves to meeting all those targets and to all their actions in the TSN action plans.
The Programme for Government also emphasises that rural development will benefit the area west of the Bann, with its high rural population. The issue of rural development should be carefully looked at in the Assembly and in Committees to ensure that that strategy comes to the fruition that I believe we all want to see. It proposes balanced regional development and sets out measures to make Northern Ireland more attractive to visitors. That will benefit rural areas. We are not using our remarkable advantages, especially in rural areas, to develop what could be a burgeoning interest in tourism in Northern Ireland.
The Programme for Government commits us to tackling disadvantage in the education and training system, particularly in disadvantaged areas, and that includes 12,000 business development training places for farmers. Ultimately the agriculture industry, and all things concerned with it, is going to be crucial to the success of the Programme for Government in areas such as the Member has specified.

Mr David Ford: Given what has just been said about the development of the economy, do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agree that the additional 200 undergraduate places projected over four years is a little low? Also, there appears to be no mention of postgraduate places. Do they agree that the importance to Northern Ireland’s economy of keeping people on higher degrees must not be underestimated? Similarly, do they also consider that the role of an information technology commission to identify the economic opportunities that may arise should be included in the Programme for Government?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I take the Member’s points on postgraduate places and information technology. They are extremely important factors in the economy of Northern Ireland, and there has been a significant expansion in the number of information technology postgraduate places in Northern Ireland. I am not in a position to comment on future trends, but no doubt we will have the opportunity to explore the matter further.
The Northern Ireland economy is doing very well, particularly in the software sector, where there have been significant year-on-year increases in the number of persons employed. A few weeks ago we had the pleasure of opening a plant for Service and Systems Solutions Ltd (Sx3). This company, which was once connected to Northern Ireland Electricity, has trebled its employment in just a few years. That is an indication of what can be done.
Also, unemployment is now at its lowest since 1984, which is a remarkable achievement. To get that down further, we will have to concentrate as much on basic skills as on skills at the top, particularly if we are to achieve the levels of social inclusion that we want. The best way to deal with the problems caused by social exclusion and to make people feel included is by getting them jobs. The people we have to get into employment to enable them to play a full part in society and to contribute to it are those who have problems with basic skills — even the ability to count, to read and to write, which are absolutely critical in this respect. What has been done in terms of IT and postgraduates has contributed to the economy and will continue to do so, but we have to balance our priorities.

Mr Speaker: I suspect that MrBeggs will have time to do little more than to put his question.

Mr Roy Beggs: Will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister give an assurance that funding will be allocated to improve the delivery of services and that it will not be wasted in excessively increasing administration? Will they also encourage Ministers and Committees to scrutinise the funding proposed to be spent on administration in their own remit so that the benefit to the citizens in terms of delivery of services can be maximised?

Mr Speaker: I am afraid that the time for questions is up. Therefore I shall have to ask the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to write in response to the Member’s question. Many other Members wish to ask questions, but I regret that Standing Orders restrict us to an hour. However, as the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister said, the Programme for Government will be the subject of a major debate in the near future.

Government Resources and Accounts Bill: Second Stage

Mr Mark Durkan: That the Second Stage of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill (NIA 6/00) be agreed.
Resource accounting and budgeting is a new system of planning, controlling and reporting on public expenditure. The Bill marks a major milestone on the way to the full implementation of resource accounting and budgeting in NorthernIreland Departments and demonstrates a commitment to introducing best practice accounting methods to the public sector. The Bill largely follows similar legislation recently passed at Westminster — the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 — and in the other devolved Administrations.
The Bill will deliver two major reforms. First, it introduces resource accounting and budgeting to government accounts and modernises the operation of other aspects of the Exchequer and Audit Act (Northern Ireland)1921. That will improve the way in which the Assembly votes and scrutinises public spending with proper measurement of the full economic costs of government activities, better treatment of capital spending and systematic reporting of allocation of resources to objectives.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)
Secondly, the Bill provides enabling legislation for the preparation and audit of consolidated accounts for the whole of the NorthernIreland public sector. That information will, in turn, be included in the United Kingdom-wide government accounts to be produced by the Treasury.
The resource accounting and budgeting initiative was launched in 1993 during direct rule. Since then, Northern Ireland Departments have been actively working towards the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting. For Members unfamiliar with the technicalities of the move to resource accounting and budgeting, resource accounting applies accruals accounting techniques to central Government by focusing on resources consumed rather than cash spent. Therefore one main change from the current system is in the treatment of fixed assets.
Resource accounting will reflect the cost of consuming fixed assets, and the cost of holding them, through a charge for depreciation and the cost of capital, rather than just the cost of acquisition as under the present cash-based system of accounting. By highlighting the real costs that arise through neglect of capital assets, this system will bring home to us all, and to Departments, the true effects of financial decisions on capital assets.
Resource accounting is based on generally accepted accounting practice in the United Kingdom. It reflects the accounting and disclosure requirements of accounting standards issued by the Accounting Standards Board, and the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, to the extent that this is appropriate to central Government. Resource accounting will form the basis of resource budgeting, so that we can plan and control central Government expenditure on an accruals basis.
As I said in my budget statement last week, the public expenditure plans from 2001-02 onwards are on the new basis. Subject to Assembly approval, supply will be voted on an accruals basis under resource accounting and budgeting. Resource accounts will replace appropriation accounts, but will essentially fulfil the same function.
Resource accounting and budgeting applies the best financial reporting practices of the private sector to central Government. For the first time, we will produce the equivalent of the main financial statements in commercial accounting. That includes a balance sheet, an operating costs statement, a statement of recognised gains and losses and a cash flow statement.
However, resource accounting and budgeting goes even further. Under the new system, there will also be a summary of resource out-turns, reflecting Assembly control, and, critically, a statement of resources by departmental aims and objectives under Public Service Agreements. That will enable us to focus on outcomes, not inputs, and on the products of our spending, not just the size of our investment. In turn, we can ensure that future public spending is planned and controlled prudently. I emphasised last week that the Executive see this as a very important opportunity to improve the way we plan and manage spending.
Resource accounting makes two important improvements to the outdated and outmoded present system of cash-based accounting. First, it will ensure that the full economic cost of a Department’s activities is measured properly by including costs, such as capital consumption, which are not reflected in cash-based accounts. It will also match the costs to the right time period, providing the Assembly with a better basis for allocating resources. It is more realistic to bring costs or income to account when commitments are made, rather than when cash changes hands. Secondly, it will bring about improvements in the treatment of capital spending, so that instead of simply identifying the cost in full in the year of acquisition, the cost of capital will be spread over its useful life, which is obviously sensible.
In the longer term, the Treasury’s aim is for resource accounting and budgeting to lead to Whole of Government Accounts (WGA), which is the natural next step. The Bill would make it possible to produce WGA for the Northern Ireland public sector, which can, in turn, be incorporated into WGA for the UK. These accounts will improve the information available to the Assembly and provide greater transparency for taxpayers.
However, to produce full audited WGA, we will need greater conformity in accounting policies, systems and procedures. That is a major challenge. A staged approach is therefore being adopted wherein we will first concentrate on delivering audited accounts covering Government Departments, agencies and non-departmental bodies. A final decision to extend coverage to the whole of the public sector will be taken in due course, when the outcomes of various developments in financial reporting and other developmental work are clear.
The Comptroller and Auditor General and his office will play a pivotal role in the implementation of resource accounting and budgeting. I fully support the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and recognise the importance of his independence and the need for him to have wide-ranging powers to report to the Assembly. This is reflected in the detail of the Bill.
However, the current draft of the Bill excludes one important clause that was included in the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 after a protracted debate. The clause requires the Treasury to consult an advisory board before issuing accounting guidance in order to demonstrate that any departures from generally accepted accounting practise are justified by the public sector context. This role is fulfilled by the Financial Reporting Advisory Board (FRAB) established by the Chancellor. FRAB is required to report annually to Parliament on its activities.
There are several ways in which we could deal with this issue in the Northern Ireland context. I intend to discuss this in detail with the Public Accounts Committee and the Finance and Personnel Committee with a view to tabling a suitable amendment as the Bill progresses.
As I indicated earlier, the spending review has already been conducted on a resource accounting basis, and the intention is that the estimates process should be moved to a resource accounting basis for the financial year 2001 - 2002. This means that the first resource accounts to be audited and laid before the Assembly will be in respect of the financial year 2001 - 2002.
In conclusion, Departments are already proceeding with the implementation of resource accounting budgeting systems and procedures. This has not been a trouble-free process, not least because of dual running and the other significant competing pressures faced by Departments. In the circumstances I wish to pay tribute to Departments which have done a tremendous job in developing resource accounts alongside cash accounts, and to the Northern Ireland Audit office for its support during the process.
It is not surprising that there has been some slippage, but we believe enough progress has been made to suggest that we remain on course to deliver on time. Accordingly I commend the Bill to the Assembly, and I will try to answer points raised by Members when I speak at the end of the debate.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As the Minister indicated, the Committee will review the Bill and, it is to be hoped, we will be able to advise the Assembly of future changes or recommendations. I will keep my comments to a minimum at this stage, but I would like to ask the Minister if it is valid to equate the accounting systems used in the private sector with those in the public service? The public service is not in the business of chasing profit margins and satisfying investors. Can we still maintain the services which are required as part of the public sector?
Will this Bill reduce the number of spending reviews we have seen over the last couple of years? Will it eventually wipe them out? Spending should be clearly accounted for within the resource accounting system. Can the Assembly assume that the Bill will introduce a genuinely simpler, more transparent and streamlined system of accounts for the future?

Mr Billy Bell: I welcome the proposals contained in the Government Resources and Accounts Bill and recognise the value of resource accounting in leading to improvements in the clarity and quality of financial information available to Members of the Assembly for scrutiny purposes. It is important that Northern Ireland Departments have financial accounts that conform to best practice in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Bill will help to ensure that.
I am aware that aspects of the comparable legislation in GB have been very contentious and that Lord Sharman is currently reviewing the arrangements for public sector audit. I expect that the Department of Finance and Personnel will consider the implications of the Sharman review for Northern Ireland.
One of the areas being addressed is the right of the Comptroller and Auditor General to inspect the books of bodies that spend public money and report to the Assembly. Those rights are extensive, and the Comptroller and Auditor General audits all Departments and most public bodies. However, as the public sector develops, those inspection rights need to be kept up to date, and Assembly Members will be determined to see that access rights for the Comptroller and Auditor General are as adequate as those at Westminster.
I am glad that the Minister has said that he and his officials will meet the Public Accounts Committee shortly to discuss these matters further. Members’ ability to hold the Executive to account depends on the information provided by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his reports. Therefore, his access rights are our access rights. The Assembly’s auditors ought to follow public money wherever it is spent in Northern Ireland.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I listened intently this morning to the exciting initiatives, new developments and breaks with the past presented to us in the Programme for Government. It is unfortunate that the same media attention is not given to this new initiative; perhaps that is because accounting procedures are not considered to be quite as exciting as other issues.
I welcome the initiative for a range of reasons. It will bring best practice in the private sector into the public sector. That is important, because good cost benefit analysis is important in both the public and private sectors. The initiative will enable the Assembly to make better-informed judgements and will make the Executive more accountable to the Assembly. We will have greater control over stock, debts and credits in the public sector. One of its most important features is that it will promote greater transparency in Government. Finally, I would like the Minister to assure us that the introduction of the measures in the Bill will not involve more expenditure on the Assembly.

Mr James Leslie: I give the Bill a qualified welcome. In time, it may emerge that several proposals may not work as smoothly and as sweetly as expected. We must be aware that, to some extent, the blind are leading the blind. This is a new departure in Treasury accounting and must be followed in the devolved institutions, although I would not be surprised if certain aspects required some revision at a later stage. That is not in any way a criticism of what is proposed here, but it may be a realistic view.
I caution the Minister against making what is a strong statement — that this is a move towards best practice; it is a move towards a practice that is common in the private sector and is best suited to the private sector. Whether that is necessarily the best practice for the Government sector may emerge and be subject to scrutiny over time.
What concerns me in relation to Treasury accounting is the propensity of the current Government to double and treble account at every opportunity — to the extent that they seem to have forgotten where they started. I commend our Minister for resisting that practice, and I trust that he will continue to do so. However, I suspect that moving to resource-based accounting may improve the Government’s ability to double and treble account and make it more difficult for those scrutinising their measures to find out.
Turning to the detail of the Bill, I note the intention to value Government assets. It will be extremely useful to know the value of the Government estate.
Can the Minister tell us what valuation method is proposed? If an outside valuer is to be used in any instances, what costs are likely to be incurred? With what frequency will those assets be revalued, and what costs are likely to be incurred on those occasions? Part of the process of placing a value on those assets is that they will then be depreciated. What depreciation policies does the Minister intend to follow? Clearly, the depreciation policy for a building will be different from that for a piece of modern technology such as a computer. The private sector swings about on which depreciation model to use. Therefore, having established what we are going to do, we will need to keep the matter under review.
I have some comments about moving to an accrual basis. The essence of accruals is that the accounts reflect the intention to spend money in a time frame, irrespective of whether the cash has changed hands. It is not as straightforward to apply this method to capital assets. The essence of a capital asset tends to be that the money has been spent. One accrues the liability over time, because the use of the asset is spread over a number of years, and so its value only arises over time. However, in cash terms, the likelihood is that the money has been spent.
There is a potential contradiction between the intentions under the cash system and how capital expenditure is going to be treated. At Treasury level, that is, in effect, dealt with by the Government borrowing requirement through the gilt market. By borrowing money, say for 10 years, the cost of acquiring that asset is spread over that period until the money is repaid. Government borrowing is not hypothecated in any way — certainly not at this stage — so there is no direct link between the issue of a particular gilt and the expenditure of particular money, but there is, in essence, an indirect link. I wonder whether it will be possible to apply these measures to capital assets without putting in some mechanism to identify the borrowing relating to the acquisition of the capital asset. For example, were we to engage in a five- year programme to upgrade the railway system, we might take a 15-year view on the benefit. However, the money for the upgrading would have to be found over five years.
On the other hand, the ability to mobilise and use private finance through private finance initiatives would clearly be enhanced. That is one of the Bill’s intentions, and that should be welcomed, but the Minister must focus very carefully on exactly how the accounting in these areas is going to be done.
It is important that the parallel running of the cash system and the resource-based accounting system should go on for some time, because the transition may prove to be quite difficult. It will be difficult under the resource- based accounting system — certainly in the early years — to make proper comparisons with previous years unless the old system is run in parallel.

Mr John Fee: From the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum in respect of the Bill I see that it is expected that the resource accounting and budgeting will cover only the central Government sector in the immediate future. However, the Bill permits the Department to designate other bodies such as health boards, trusts and local councils, et cetera. Has the Minister given any thought to the timescale for the application of this accounting system across all public administration?

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank Members for their contributions and questions. Several points have been raised, and I wish to deal with as many of those as I can in the short time available.
The Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee, Mr Francie Molloy, raised several questions. I welcome the fact that the Committee will be giving full consideration to this Bill. It is more than a technical financial management instrument. It has key policy implications in that it will change how policy priorities, commitments and ambitions are articulated within spending plans and the management of public expenditure.
On Mr Molloy’s question as to whether it is appropriate to incorporate accounting procedures from the private sector into the public sector, I would make the point which was later made by Mr McClelland. We are trying to incorporate best practice, and that should be the business of the public sector.
With reference to the UK generally accepted accounting practice (GAAP), that is a ready-made set of rules. We are not talking about following them blindly, as some people are worried about. The Northern Ireland resource account manual interprets GAAP as being appropriate to reflect the fact that resource accounting will form part of the planning and control system for central Government and also to reflect the non-commercial nature of Government activities. We are talking about best practice relating to accounting methods but not about ignoring the fundamental nature of Government business and public-service operations. We will have due regard for the realities and requirements of both.
Concerns were raised about whether this could lead to fewer spending reviews. The main issue here is not so much whether there will be more or fewer spending reviews, but there will be a different way of conducting them. That is the whole point of moving from the focus’s being on inputs to outcomes — what it is we are trying to buy as an Assembly.
We are talking about a system whereby the Assembly will decide to buy particular service outcomes and results from various Government Departments and public bodies, funded by public expenditure, so that will change and fundamentally improve the nature of spending reviews in the future and should allow for improved scrutiny by the Assembly and its Committees.
Mr Billy Bell spoke as Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee, and I appreciate the fact that he was able to give a broad welcome to resource accounts and budgeting and that he recognises the importance of such accounts conforming to best practice elsewhere, which we have to take into account. The whole move to resource accounting and budgeting is not confined simply to the UK. We should follow it, not just because it is being followed elsewhere in the UK, but because it is becoming the norm in a variety of jurisdictions.
As Mr Bell said, the access rights of the Comptroller and Auditor General are being reviewed by the Sharman committee, and we will take full cognisance of anything that develops. We are keeping a watching brief on that, and we will bring forward appropriate measures for Northern Ireland in due course.
Donovan McClelland gave a broad welcome to the thrust of the Bill. I can assure him that the use of resource accounting and budgeting should not, of itself, create any extra costs in the planning and management of public expenditure. Obviously, insofar as the move to resource accounting and budgeting may have involved additional expenditure, then that has already been incurred by Departments in setting up the necessary accounting systems. I can reassure him that there will be no extra costs built into the system.
A Member asked whether this is about best practice, and I am glad to answer in the affirmative. It really is about best practice. It is not about trying to pretend that the public sector and public services are not the public sector and are not public services; it is to make it clear that we know we are in the business of responsible financial management. If we are to be properly accountable and transparent, then we need to perform to those standards.
James Leslie raised several points. I take his point that more detail will have to be considered as we take this Bill forward. I want to speak to both the Finance and Personnel Committee and the Public Accounts Committee about various aspects of the legislation.
As for the treatment and valuation of property assets, major property assets will be valued by the Valuation and Lands Office on a cyclical basis, probably every five years. That will help to spread the cost of valuation.
In regard to the public sector borrowing requirement and the Treasury, the cash system that we currently have does not bring home to public sector managers the opportunity cost of holding assets. It will make a difference if they have to account for a capital charge or for depreciation. The logic and motive should be clear. I accept that there are further issues that we need to explore on how we handle, manage and portray depreciation. That is one of the further details of the Bill that the Assembly and Committees can work through.
To date, the systems have run in parallel. That creates some difficulties and, going back to Donovan McClelland’s point, incurs some cost. However, I am prepared to look at how long we should continue parallel running if people believe that it will help to improve the judgements made in relation to the value of resource accounting and budgeting.
We cannot continue parallel running indefinitely. We want to move in a committed and unambiguous way towards resource accounting and budgeting. The Assembly would find it easier to concentrate on one method, as would Departments, and, I believe, the Committees.
On Mr Fee’s point, the whole of government accounts clauses address the extension of resource accounting and budgeting outside central Government. That will take a number of years to implement. At this stage, we are focussing on central Government Departments and the bodies most directly related to them. In due course, we will make proposals to extend the measures across the public sector, but we need to do that on the basis of our experience and knowledge. It would be gratuitous to set a timetable at this stage. On that basis, I thank Members for their consideration of this stage and their contributions, and I commend the Bill to the House. I look forward to further consideration of the Bill, both in the House and in the Committees.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill (NIA6/00) be agreed.
The sitting was suspended at 12.42 pm.
On resuming —

Assembly: Committee on Procedures

Resolved:
That Mr Nigel Dodds be appointed to the Committee on Procedures and that Mr Ian Paisley Jnr shall replace MrSammyWilson as a member of the Committee on Procedures.— [Mr Dodds]

Civic Forum

Mr Nigel Dodds: I beg to move
That this Assembly urges the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to take appropriate and immediate steps to appoint a representative of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland to the Civic Forum.
Members will recall that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister announced the membership of the Civic Forum to the Assembly on 25 September. At that time many of us raised a number of general points of contention about the make-up of the Civic Forum. People had problems with the fact that there are 10 representatives, for instance, from the business and agriculture/fisheries sector. Compared to the representation from the voluntary and community sector, which numbers 18, there seems to be an imbalance. Victims have only two representatives on the Civic Forum. In addition we have the incongruous position whereby the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister represent — I am indebted to the Alliance Party’s Mr Ford for this figure in a previous debate — only 0·00012% of the population, yet they have nominated 10% of the members of the Civic Forum. I also note that MrMallon appointed someone who lives and works outside Northern Ireland. It seems a strange set of criteria to use in appointing someone to the Civic Forum in Northern Ireland.
We raised many issues relating to the general make-up of the Civic Forum when the matter first came before the Assembly on 16 February 1999. On 25 September the First Minister time and again referred to the fact that it was a bit late for Members to raise issues because the Assembly had previously agreed on a way to nominate members to the Forum. He failed to point out that many Members had spoken out and voted against that system. On 16 February, 28 Members went into the Lobbies against the proposed make-up of the Civic Forum. There is no point in representatives of the First Minister coming here today, as they did on 25 September, and telling us that everything is agreed. It was agreed on a vote, but it was not agreed by many who sit on these Benches, so we are quite entitled to raise these matters.
I also noted when I went through the record of the debate of 16 February that Mr Ford of the Alliance Party had an interesting suggestion, which was that members of the Civic Forum be rotated. That that is an interesting observation in the light of some of the criticisms he has since made about the principle of rotation.
After the Assembly’s approval in February 1999 of the way in which the Civic Forum was to be made up, we all expected that there would be a realistic attempt to achieve balance, fairness and inclusivity and a general willingness to see that the principles of equality were implemented. On 25 September Mr Mallon told the House that the body should incorporate the total width of views in Northern Ireland. Anyone who looks down the list of members can see that we have ex-terrorists involved, we have a failed politician involved and we have a whole litany of "Yes" people involved. With a few honourable exceptions, there is little room for people who have a different view on the Belfast Agreement or for people who represent the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland at a high level. That is a grave omission, which once again cuts across pledges and promises that were made not only in the House but outside it as well.
Whatever members of the various parties in the House may think of the Orange Order — and as a member of that Order I have to declare an interest — they have to accept that it is one of the largest Protestant organisations in Northern Ireland. It has many thousands of members. It has a vital role to play in the cultural identity of the Protestant and Unionist people of Northern Ireland. It is a grave omission indeed that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have not seen fit to recognise the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland in a proper and fitting way by having a member from it on the Civic Forum.
In the debate on 21 September Mr Mallon stated that he wants the Civic Forum to be a body that is uncomfortable for the Assembly. It certainly will not cause much discomfort to Mr Mallon and his party, or to the pro-agreement parties, because there are not many voices in it that will be raised in disagreement with their political point of view.
I have no doubt that when the Ministers come to reply to this debate, they will suggest that our raising this issue and our expressing an interest in the Forum membership implies support for the idea of the Civic Forum. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Civic Forum has been appointed, and we have a right to express a view on its membership. However, nothing we say should be taken as an endorsement of the idea of the Civic Forum.
One of the Ulster Unionist Party’s leading research aides, who perhaps wrote Mr Nesbitt’s speech today, has expressed concerns about the Civic Forum in the local press. We all know why it was set up and who was behind its setting up. One political party has good reason to support its creation because it is the only place in which it can get any sort of representation.
On 25 September the First Minister said that because Members had raised the omission of Grand Orange Lodge representatives, or even one representative, this somehow was to misunderstand the nature of the process. No doubt this tired old excuse will be trotted out today by the Ministers. The reality is that we fully understand the nature of the nomination process. Sectors were identified, applications were invited, and interview panels were set up.
The First Minister said that it would be inappropriate to give a specific body like Grand Lodge power to nominate. We understand that. However, he is missing the point. The reality is that having appointed someone — and I make no comment or cast any aspersions whatsoever on the integrity or ability of the person appointed by the First Minister — who would be representative of the Orange Order, it would have been appropriate for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to have looked at who had applied for membership from within Orange ranks. At least two members of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland applied for membership of the Civic Forum. They were unsuccessful, but it was open to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to look at those applications and say "If we are going to appoint somebody who knows about Orange views, who is representative of the Orange Order, we will appoint someone from Grand Lodge."
We have often heard it said that people should be appointed to various groups by a process of consultation, that what that group or sector thinks itself should be taken on board. You should empower groups so they have a real role to play, but the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are saying "We know better than the Grand Orange Lodge as to who should be representative of Orange views." That is not acceptable.
By not appointing a member of Grand Lodge to the Civic Forum they have done the Orange Order, one of the largest Protestant and Unionist groupings in Northern Ireland, a grave disservice.
I note that the Deputy First Minister said that there would be a review of the operation of the Civic Forum 12 months after its appointment. I also note that the Deputy First Minister, in saying that the Civic Forum should reflect all views in Northern Ireland, said
"I ask the Assembly to accept that, and if I am wrong I will make the matter right very quickly."
I appeal to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to have a review in less than 12 months, in view of that statement made by the Deputy First Minister a couple of weeks ago, to see if this matter can be put right quickly. If they refuse to review the matter, that will compound the error they made in the first place. This is an important matter. There are many people in the community we represent who are very resentful that an ex-terrorist can be appointed to the Civic Forum. Those representing few people in Northern Ireland have been appointed, and yet an organisation that speaks for tens of thousands of people and has contributed a lot to the Protestant community over the years has been completely ignored.

Ms Jane Morrice: Many Members want to participate in this debate and we have a two-hour limit. Members are asked to keep their remarks to less than five minutes in length. When Members have 10 seconds left, I will advise them to bring their remarks to a close.

Mr Peter Weir: I find myself in a fairly unusual position. With the possible exception of the junior Minister, who will be speaking on behalf of the Executive, I may well be the only Ulster Unionist to speak in this debate. I am also in the very unusual position of advising the First Minister to review the situation and his previous decision, which is something unnatural to me.
In supporting the motion I have to declare that I regard myself as agnostic at best on the benefits of the Civic Forum. Down the years, Northern Ireland has been ruled too much by quangos, and the creation of another quango at public expense concerns me. Whatever the criticisms of the Assembly are, its advantage is that it has been elected by the people of Northern Ireland, and if we reach another Assembly election, the people will be able to give their verdict on individual politicians. The same will not be the case with the Civic Forum — it does not have that same representative quality.
Having got a Civic Forum we need to have it strive to be reflective and representative of society in Northern Ireland. While the Executive will carry a certain amount of baggage, the Civic Forum, if it operates correctly, will be able to command the respect and support of the whole of Northern Ireland. This is one of my reasons for supporting the motion.
Within the Orange Order is a community principally drawn from a Unionist society that feels disillusioned and aggrieved with this process. It is up to the Civic Forum to ensure that it commands the support of a lot of those people. I am disconcerted by the fact that an organisation as large and important within the political life — indeed the entire life — of Northern Ireland as the Orange Order is not officially represented. To be able to provide a true reflection of society here there needs to be at least one representative from Grand Lodge.
The key word in this motion is representative. It could be argued, and has been argued by the First Minister when this matter has been raised, that he himself selected and appointed a member of the Orange Order. I cast no aspersions on the abilities of Richard Monteith, who is a good advocate for the Unionist and Orange cause, but the reality is that he is not there as a representative — he is an appointee who happens to be an Orangeman. Let us look at the other sectors. There are people representing the trade union sector; there are also people representing other sectors who are trade unionists, but are not there as representatives of the trade unions. There are two people representing victims, and I would be surprised if among the other 58 members there was not at least one who has been a victim in some way. Various people, who are in the Civic Forum through other routes, can also reflect a different point of view. The fact that someone who has been appointed also happens to be a member of the Orange Order does not ultimately make him a representative of the Order. That is the crucial difference.
The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should take this opportunity to look at the overall make-up of the Civic Forum. By necessity, it was delegated to various sectors to nominate members. The one disadvantage in that is that the situation in Northern Ireland as a whole is not reflected.
I urge the First Minister to evaluate the situation in order to ensure there is direct representation from the Grand Orange Lodge. It is important to see the wider picture and to understand where the weaknesses in the Civic Forum are with regard to representation. The First Minister must ensure that new proposals are brought before the Assembly, perhaps to expand the number of people in the Civic Forum so that it fully represents Northern Ireland society. Whatever our feelings about its initial set-up we should have a Civic Forum that fully reflects the views, and carries the respect, of all the people in Northern Ireland. I urge Members to support the motion.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I oppose the motion. It is a typically opportunistic motion from the DUP and is a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. The DUP, in keeping with its negative attitude to the institutions set up by the Good Friday Agreement, did not participate in the cross-party study group that was set up to advise the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on the composition of the Civic Forum. However, now it is giving its views on that forum.
There is another reason why this motion is so fundamentally dishonest. Not only was the DUP opposed to the institutions set up under the agreement, it was particularly opposed to the idea of the Civic Forum from the outset. I quote from a statement issued by Mr Paisley Jnr on 25 September, the day the membership of the Civic Forum was announced in this Chamber. These are some of the pejorative phrases he used to describe the Civic Forum: "the cronies Forum;" "nodding dogs;" "yes men;" "a comfort blanket for the pro-Agreement parties;" "a toothless wonder". Despite this, DUP Members have come to the Assembly today to demand seats for the Orange Order. It puts me in mind of a line from Groucho Marx:
"I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member".
In his statement, Mr Paisley Jnr also complained that there are too many trade unionists in the forum, that voluntary groups have double the representation of business and agriculture, and that the number of the First and the Deputy First Minister’s appointees is triple the number of victims’ representatives. However, there is not a word in that statement about the alleged under-representation of the Orange Order. What has changed in the last month? The first time I heard the DUP mention the Orange Order with reference to membership of the forum was in this Chamber when the membership was announced.
There is another matter, which is one that only the Orange Order itself can decide. This relates to whether the Orange Order is a religious, a political, or a cultural organisation. If the Order has applied for membership of the forum, under which heading has it applied? If it has not applied, why not? The Civic Forum is a body, which, as the Deputy First Minister said, should represent all views. Indeed he is on record as saying that he would have welcomed a recommendation from the Orange Order, or from the Apprentice Boys. The Civic Forum is not bureaucratic. There are many imaginative independent thinkers who will discuss and debate the thorny issues of this society such as the transfer test, the relationship between poverty and ill health, sectarianism, the economy, and many other issues.
The SDLP wholeheartedly supports the purpose of the Civic Forum. We believe that it has a very positive role to play in the public life of Northern Ireland. It will also foster pluralism and diversity. It will, through time, prove its worth to all. This is the first opportunity for civic society to take ownership of the peace process and to have its voice clearly heard.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. My initial reaction on seeing this motion was that maybe it had some merit. Exposure to wider civic society and to a diversity of people and views might help to open some minds. On reflection, the reality is that the Orange Order is beyond redemption in this regard.
There are any number of groups, many of them of a much more benign and positive nature, who could ask for special treatment. Why should the Orange Order be given special treatment on the Civic Forum, especially given the nature of that organisation? For centuries, the Orange Order has had an undue and malign influence throughout society in the North of Ireland — in Unionist political parties, the judiciary, the police force and in business. These are positions of power and influence. How many members of the Civic Forum are already members of the Orange Order? Indeed, how many Members of this Assembly are members of the Orange Order?
The Orange Order is a sectarian and racist organisation. This motion is akin to asking the Ku Klux Klan to make a positive contribution to American society. It is very telling that, last year, a Ku Klux Klan spokesman stated that his organisation was concerned at being compared with the Orange Order. The Orange Order’s raison d’être is to keep Fenians in their place. I will not go into the history of its bloody birth at the Battle of the Diamond, or the widespread disruption, murder and mayhem that have accompanied Orange marches and parades ever since. Everyone in Ireland, especially on the Garvaghy and Ormeau Roads, and throughout the world, knows only too well the Orange Order’s negative and malign influence.
For example, who will forget the disgraceful scenes at an Orange Order parade on the OrmeauRoad when participants laughed, jeered and celebrated the murder of five people from the local community in Sean P Graham’s bookmaker’s shop? Who could ever tolerate the ongoing brutalisation and intimidation of the Garvaghy Road community in Portadown in order to facilitate a swaggering, triumphalist Orange Order parade through an inoffensive minority community?
The Good Friday Agreement and its institutions, including the Civic Forum, are supposed to be about a new way of organising society — not a mere replication of the old, failed ways of the past. Members of the Orange Order have no positive contribution to make to the Civic Forum. It is a secret society. It is not just any old benign secret society whose members wear funny hats, carry swords and engage in strange rituals, although members of the Orange Order undoubtedly do all of those things. The Orange Order is a sectarian and racist organisation founded on hatred of anything Catholic or Irish. It is an organisation that foments and fosters inequality and division in our society. One only has to read some of the words of Orange tunes — "We’re up to our necks in Fenian blood. Surrender or you’ll die." — to see how offensive the Orange Order and its philosophy are.
This motion has more to do with the divisions in Unionism and the DUP’s attempts to show how much more Unionist it is. The hypocrisy of this motion is appalling, although it is what we have come to expect from the DUP in this Assembly. It is appalling because the Orange Order, with the help of loyalist paramilitaries, has succeeded in tearing civic society apart for the last five years in their futile and dangerous attempt to march along the Garvaghy Road.
The Orange Order refuses to speak to those who disagree with it. Not only do its members refuse to talk to Nationalist residents and their chosen representatives, but they also refuse to talk to the Northern Ireland Parades Commission. The DUP puts down a motion asking for special and preferential treatment for such an organisation —

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member will draw her remarks to a close.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: It is time for elements within Unionism to realise that "the times they are a-changin". The time for propping up bigotry and sectarianism and making it respectable is over.

Ms Jane Morrice: Time is up.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Move into the modern world. We should be discussing ways of ridding our society of sectarianism, instead of trying —

Ms Jane Morrice: Time is up. Order.

Mr Norman Boyd: The decision to exclude the Orange Order from membership of the Civic Forum demonstrates a bias against the huge section of the Protestant community that belongs to that organisation. It graphically illustrates that the Civic Forum lacks credibility and that its apparent inclusivity extends — with a few exceptions — only to those people who follow the Government’s pro-agreement line. It is clear that despite the Orange Order’s huge membership — and I have no apology for being a member — it has been excluded because of its opposition to the Belfast Agreement. What other reason can there be for excluding it from membership of the Civic Forum?
There are people who try to demonise the Orange Order, and we have just heard five minutes of sheer black propaganda. I want to counter that with the truth about the Orange Order. The Orange Order has, from its earliest beginnings, given leadership at all levels of society. It is a Christian organisation and has included in its membership ministers of religion, bishops, moderators, mayors, councillors, politicians and even the First Minister. It would be interesting to know whether the previous speaker is now accusing the First Minister of racism. Members can be found serving their community in all walks of life. The Orange Order has members both male and female, young and old, in many countries including England, Scotland, Wales, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Togo, Ghana and the USA.
Traditionally the Orange Order is seen as a marching organisation. Much work goes on unseen, such as caring for orphans and supporting widows. The Orange Order has also supported numerous good causes including hospitals and hospices, as well as a multitude of charities and missions. That is in addition to individual contributions by many members.
More recently the Orange Order has embarked on aid to churches in Eastern Europe and support for modern communication of the gospel overseas. The Orange Order has been encouraging young people, through bursaries, to develop their own business, commercial and industrial skills in order to improve the economy of Northern Ireland — unlike Sinn Féin/IRA, which for 30 years has terrorised this community, attacking over 250 Orange halls and destroying many businesses.
The Orange Order stands for civil and religious liberties for all and is committed to Christian principles and the gospel message. The Orange Order’s ideals are far above any that the so-called Civic Forum may have or claim to stand for. The Civic Forum lacks credibility, as it does not truly reflect civic society and is not inclusive. The Orange Order will continue to prosper and stand firm for its principles, as it has done for many years, while the Civic Forum will, I suggest, last only a matter of weeks.

Mr Denis Watson: There seems to be some misunderstanding among Members of why the Orange Order wishes to have a place in the Civic Forum, given its opposition to the Belfast Agreement. I remind Members that on 12July 1998 we stated from all Orange Order platforms our resolution that
"We must all do what we can to help make this country well-governed, fair, just, peaceful and prosperous … Positive participation in the Assembly will ensure that the full strength of Unionism is concentrated in every debate, discussion and decision taken at Stormont."
In the ‘Orange Standard’ of that month, the editorial comment read
"The situation being as it is, it is imperative that every effort be made to make the Assembly work to the advantage of all the people — that we get good government, fair and just treatment for everyone, regardless of class, creed or race in what is becoming a multi-racial society."
I have listened with interest to the debate. Sadly, one of the Members for Upper Bann is not present in the Chamber. I was saddened to listen to Ms Hanna’s comments earlier. Clearly, no account has been taken of the fact that the Orange Order is one of the largest organisations in Northern Ireland and certainly encompasses all shades of Unionism.
It is well and good for the First Minister, when he announced his nominations, and for Mr Richard Monteith, who is a solicitor acting on behalf of Portadown District. On that occasion the First Minister attempted to justify the appointment of Mr Monteith as a back-door representation for the Order. However, it is quite plain that Mr Monteith is there in his own capacity as a member of the Civic Forum. He cannot speak on behalf of the Orange Order because he is not a member of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland.
The Orange Institution will not be sneaking in through the back door of this Forum as if it is in some sort of shame. The Orange Institution deserves and should be afforded official representation. At the time of the nominations the First Minister assured us that each of the three nominations he made was
"specifically to ensure that balance and inclusion did occur."
There can be no balance and inclusion when the epitome of Protestant culture and heritage is omitted from the list.
Contrary to what Carmel Hanna said, the Orange Institution did go through the proper channels. When we approached the Office of the First Minister we were told how to apply, and I am aware of at least two members of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland who applied for positions on the Civic Forum and were unsuccessful. I understand that there are two members of the Civic Forum who may be members of the Orange Institution — and we congratulate them on their appointment — but they are not there to represent the views of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland.
Even the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has recognised on numerous occasions that the Orange Order is important in the community and has a role to play in the civic society of Northern Ireland. It is widely acknowledged, even by those opposed to the Orange Order and by Members of the House, that the Order is the largest social provider in the Protestant community. Many community audits clearly show how important Orange halls are to the life of our local communities, often forming the heart of them. Community audits recognise that, but unfortunately the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister choose to ignore it.
The Orange Order is saddened that it does not have a place on the Civic Forum. It has been subject to the worst kind of black propaganda and we have listened to it here again today. It is equalled only by the vilification of the RUC. The political process has attempted to make the Orange Order and its members distasteful to the wider public. Our institution has been reviled and maligned by misinformation and misrepresentation by those who know nothing about its make-up or its principles and, worse still, by those who do.
The Orange Order should have the right to speak. It is owed the right to reply. It deserves the chance to have its voice heard, and apparently the place to do so is the Civic Forum. This morning the Orange Order received a letter from Downing Street. The content clearly states the Prime Minister’s position in relation to our institution.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member will please draw his remarks to a close.

Mr Denis Watson: The Prime Minister acknowledges "the contribution the Grand Orange Lodge makes to Northern Ireland society."

Ms Jane Morrice: Time up.

Mr David Ervine: I rise with some reluctance to speak on this issue. I am a member of the Protestant community; I am not a member of the Orange Order, but many members of my party are. If they had been listening in the Chamber today, they would have felt insulted on two counts, and probably more.
One severely unbalanced comment — one of the most sectarian comments that I have ever heard in the Chamber — was made by the Member for Upper Bann, Dara O’Hagan. It is insulting for her simply to write off, in the manner that she did, those whom she does not understand or disagrees with, whether or not those people will talk to her. That in itself is sectarian. To some degree she is right to chastise the DUP for carrying the cudgel on behalf of the Orange Order, but considering her political requirements it is somewhat hypocritical.
It might be worth pointing out that the leader of the PUP, Cllr Hugh Smyth OBE, has been a member of the Orange Order for more than 50 years. When the Orange Order declared itself to be anti-agreement, no one asked him for his opinion. No one asked anyone in his Lodge for their opinion. The Grand Master of the Orange Lodge, a decent man who I know very well, stood with political forces arrayed against the Good Friday Agreement. I feel that, tragically, as we approached the referendum day and stood hand in hand, he changed the context of the Orange Order as I had always understood it.
However, as I did not move in the hallowed halls of power or in the halls of justice and just lived in the streets of Belfast, I have no sense of anger, hurt or frustration towards the Orange Order. I feel a sense of affinity and appreciation, because its members lived in my home, lived next door to me and lived in the next street — I associated with them all day, every day. The suggestion that there was manipulation in our society in the past resonates with me, but it has to be placed on record that one side has simply castigated and vilified the Orange Order without realising the decency and integrity of the ordinary people who are members of it. At the same time, the only hope that this society has for its future has been vilified, without the membership of the Orange Order — who undoubtedly disagree in large numbers with the leadership — being questioned, debated with and consulted.
I would welcome the Orange Order having membership of the Civic Forum, but the Orange Order has a responsibility to define its political and religious outlooks. PeterWeir described it as a group with great political significance, but he should have said that it has great social significance. He described it as a political organisation. All those who are not members have a big fear about the manipulation of the Orange Order.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Until MrWatson spoke I was confused about the procedures that the Orange Order had followed to ensure that it had seats on the Civic Forum. That point needs to be addressed in the debate, although I am pleased to hear that its participation has been enthusiastically followed. During the negotiations I put forward the idea of a Civic Forum, and I recall that some people were very disparaging about it. I am often chastised by DUP Members for putting forward confused arguments. Until MrWatson spoke, I was slightly confused about the position taken by the proposer of the motion — the DUP is against something but is still very anxious to ensure places on it. PeterWeir said, though not in these words, that it was the democratic wish that there should be a Civic Forum and, as one had been established, the Orange Order should have membership of it.
I shall leave that aside, because there is much confusion about whether the Orange Order wanted membership of the Forum. I, along with CarmelHanna and others, participated in some of the negotiations on who should be represented on the CivicForum. It was decided that there would be a sector representing cultural organisations. Last February it was agreed that there would be such representation and that would be agreed through the Cultural Traditions committee of the Community Relations Council. My understanding is that a public advertisement was placed in the papers inviting people to sit on a nominating consortium. Some groups responded and six were put on the consortium, although not all took their places. The Orange Order, as an institution, did not apply to become a member of the nominating consortium.
After the consortium had been established, another advertisement was placed inviting persons to apply for membership of the Forum. Those who applied had to follow an interview process. Four persons were appointed, including at least one who is a member of the Orange Order, but not a nominee of that institution. He represents the Ulster-Scots in the cultural sector. Once again, however, no formal Orange Order nominations were received in response to the second public advertisement. Everyone knew about the advertisement. One would have thought that representatives of a cultural institution that had not already applied would have taken that opportunity to apply to become part of a consortium. However, they did not do so.
As far as I understand the situation — and perhaps the proposer will come back to this point at the end of the debate — the Orange Order, as an institution, did not propose any members. So it was a wasted opportunity.
Surely, they are not telling us that not having gone through the most transparent and accountable method of selection they then went to the Office of the First Minister, which I think is what Mr Watson was saying in his speech. They had not got their "act" together as far as making those nominations was concerned, unlike everyone else who had a fair and equal opportunity. Denis uses the word, "fair" in relation to the institution. The institution itself would probably feel that that was the fair and appropriate method of applying.
It is unfair to suggest that you should go to the Office of the First Minister and seek preferential treatment. Members who were party to the negotiations will remember that when we asked the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to make nominations it was with a view to those organisations that had not been named and who actually felt that there was no place for them. That is my understanding of how some of these people were nominated by the Office of the Centre.
I am also very pleased that Denis Watson says that the Orange Order statement in July referred to their desire that the country should be well governed, fair and peaceful. If they had been members of the Civic Forum that would indeed take place. Last July left us with a desperate feeling in this country that whatever happened we were not well governed, and it certainly was not fair and peaceful.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I feel compelled to tackle two points. The first relates to the comments made by the lead Sinn Féin speaker, and the second relates to the coherence of this motion.
First, with respect to first Sinn Féin speaker and indeed the rather colourful comparison between the Orange Order and the Ku Klux Klan. That was unfair and unhelpful. If we had time — and it probably would not be helpful but it would perhaps not be unreasonable — we could trace the antecedents of our own party and some of the rather unpleasant far right neo-fascist groups in continental Europe that Sinn Féin have been associated with over the years. The brush of racism can tar in a number of directions and Members who charge the Orange Order with that particular position need to examine the beam in their own ideological eye.
Secondly, as regards the motion lacking coherence. As far as I can see, there is in fact no appropriate and immediate action that can be taken by the Office of First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Therefore, this motion is asking for something that, in any case. cannot be done. Of course the proposers will undoubtedly say that it is the Ulster Unionist Party’s fault for structuring the Civic Forum in that way in the first place. The response to that is that this is yet another case where the Democratic Unionist Party and others absented themselves from the negotiations and then feel that they can carp about the results of those negotiations.
As has been pointed out already, there are a number of Orange Order members in the Civic Forum. Given that it is an organisation with between 40,000 to 80,000 members on the island, it is entirely appropriate that that block of so-called civic society should be represented. Undoubtedly there will be problems in the structure of the Civic Forum — there always are when new institutions are set up. I am not just thinking about the representation given to the various cultural organisations — there are broader issues. These problems can be addressed in the review of the Civic Forum, which I understand will occur one year after its onset of operation.

Mr Edwin Poots: If evidence were required to show that the Orange Order should have been appointed to the Civic Forum, perhaps it is in today’s debate; particularly after comments from those representing the Nationalist community in this Assembly. Ms Carmel Hanna, who I deem to be a very reasonable Nationalist, clearly does not understand the Orange Order, its workings, or what it is about. Obviously, representatives of the Orange Order will not have the opportunity, in the Civic Forum, to help other diverse groups in the community to know exactly what it is about.
As for Sinn Féin, I do not expect anything else from them. To talk about everyone else being bloodthirsty, racist, and bigoted is somewhat farcical given their track record in this Province over the past 30 years.
I would return to Mr Mallon’s comments in relation to the establishment and representation on the Civic Forum:
"We will ensure that the Forum has the appropriate balance to enable it to represent fully all sections in Northern Ireland."
It is a very clear statement; "all sections in Northern Ireland". The Orange Order subsequently went through the process of applying for membership of the Civic Forum. Whether you agree with the body is immaterial, the fact is that they applied for membership. We do not agree with the structures of the Belfast Agreement — this Assembly is one of those structures — but we went to the people, were elected to this Assembly, and so we are entitled to be here. The Orange Order put its name forward for representation on the Civic Forum despite disagreeing with the structures brought about by the Belfast Agreement.
In my view it is arrogant of Mr Trimble and Mr Mallon to say that they have appointed members of the Orange Order and that that representation is sufficient. It smacks of what Sir Reg Empey did when he appointed Mr Bertie Kerr as chairman of the Food Safety Board. In that instance he indicated that a farming representative should be appointed as chairman, but he did not ask the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers’ Association (NIAPA) to put representatives forward; he decided who would be the best person to represent the farming community. In this instance, Mr Trimble has shown a great degree of arrogance in that his decision as to who should represent the Orange Order is above what the Orange Order would wish for itself.
There has been a constant attack on the Protestant culture, the Orange culture, and on the Unionist culture. Mr Ervine talked about the social importance of the Orange Order: it has a religious importance, a political importance, a social importance and a cultural importance. Eighty thousand men belong to the organisation. Many women and young people also support the organisation although they are not members. For people to demean the Orange Order and write it off as being something like the Ku Klux Klan shows a severe lack of understanding of what the Orange Order is.
In relation to Ms Hanna’s comment that the DUP wants to bar the door after the horse has bolted, MrMcGrady said on 16 February 1999 that the DUP had been complaining about the potential composition of the Civic Forum and not about the principle of the Forum. So we are not complaining after the event, we were complaining before the event. We sent out early signals that this might well happen and, in this instance, it has. Our voice has been ignored; the voices of those within the Assembly opposed to the Belfast Agreement have been ignored, and the voice of the Orange Order has been ignored.
In conclusion, I believe the Orange Order should have been entitled to a place in the Civic Forum. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister must look at this matter again. It is not fair to write off such a substantial section of our community while we can have the Irish language, Gaelic associations and other exclusive organisations from the Nationalist community represented.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat. That this motion came from the DUP must have raised a smile—if not outright laughter — from other Members. The "No" camp said "No" to the Civic Forum. Now, they want the Assembly — in particular, Members from all the parties that worked long and hard to make the Civic Forum a reality — to urge the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to appoint a representative to the Forum. Are they really saying "Yes" to something, at last?
The following sectors were invited to set up consortia that would be responsible for shortlisting candidates and ensuring a balance of gender, community background, geographical spread and age among nominees: business, agriculture and fisheries, trade unions, voluntary community work, churches, culture, arts, sports, victims, community relations, education and the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. The DUP, who rubbished the Civic Forum, now wants to add another sector — the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland — so that that organisation can be represented. Did the consortiums that came together from all the sectors of civic society that I have mentioned to nominate representatives to the Forum think so little of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland that they did not consider anyone from that organisation to be worthy of nomination? Perhaps, the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland is fully represented by nominations from the various sectoral nominees. Maybe, they are in the closet and have just not come out yet. That may happen at the next meeting of the Civic Forum; they might don their bowler hats and collarettes and proclaim that they are really members of the Grand Orange Lodge. Or does the motion mean that the DUP is under orders to support the Civic Forum, lest it become — in its warped analysis — another concession to Republicans? Do the Grand Orange Lodge and the DUP think that the Civic Forum — whatever its democratic limitations — could become a stabilising influence in their wee Province, where consensus politics is a new experience? Perhaps, they want to make sure that that does not happen.
The DUP’s contribution to civic society has been limited to brandishing Union Jacks and attacking everyone who disagrees with them. Our response to the motion is "if you are not in, you can’t win". More fundamentally, the Civic Forum should not have within it any group with the title "Grand". Equality must be the cornerstone of civic society. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr David Hilditch: I will get back to reality. I urge the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to seize the opportunity to appoint a representative of the Grand Lodge of Ireland to the Civic Forum immediately. The motion gives us the opportunity to expose the nonsense peddled by the pro-agreement parties that the Belfast Agreement is an all-inclusive agreement and that the Civic Forum would give representation to spokespersons from all walks of society, including churches, cultural and community groupings. Once again, the Unionist community has been discriminated against by the refusal of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to include a representative of the Grand Lodge of Ireland on the Civic Forum.
The Orange family in Northern Ireland extends to approximately one quarter of a million people, and is one of the largest religious and cultural groupings in the Province. That the Order was not offered at least one representative on the Civic Forum is a snub to its members and our community. Once again, it demonstrates clearly that the Belfast Agreement has nothing to offer the law-abiding, decent citizens who had the forethought to say "No" to the policy of appeasement of IRA/Sinn Féin.
We would not expect the Deputy First Minister to value the Orange Institution. We condemn the part that he and other senior members of the SDLP have played in trying to demonise the Order, while supporting moves to get the armed wing of the pan-Nationalist front into Government.
However, we expected the First Minister to openly acknowledge the Orange family, membership of which he used to launch his political career and become Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. This is a position which, I have no doubt, will come to an abrupt end soon. Alas, he appears to have as much commitment to the Orange Institution as he has shown himself to have for his election manifesto. He has broken promise after promise.
The Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, publicly stated that he values the important role of the Orange Institution in Northern Ireland life. Does the First Minister also value the very important role that the Orange Order plays in Northern Ireland life? If so, why should he have the effrontery to fail to offer it a place on the Civic Forum? Mr Trimble does not appear to value its important role in Northern Ireland. After all, he is leading a charge in his party to reduce, and ultimately sever, the links with it.
Furthermore, there is the case of Portadown District No 1 on Drumcree Hill, whose members are denied their civil and religious liberties, refused access to the Queen’s highway and prevented from returning home from worship, all at the behest of IRA/Sinn Féin. If the First Minister was genuinely interested in the Orange Institution, would this situation have been allowed to continue for so long? I suspect that the Orangemen on Drumcree Hill are paying the price for saying "No" to the Belfast Agreement. By not offering the institution a place on the Civic Forum, David Trimble is carrying out a petty vendetta against it, because it stood firmly against a sell-out of the Ulster people.
The Belfast Agreement discriminates against law-abiding people. It has constantly rewarded those who use violence, threaten violence, show no remorse, show no intention of mending their ways, and show no regard for those who have exercised their democratic right to say "No". The Civic Forum has been gerrymandered to exclude all but the "Yes" men. This is the democracy that David Trimble and Co call "all-inclusive".
I wanted to expose the nonsense and lies peddled by the pro-agreement parties — that the Belfast Agreement is an all-inclusive agreement — and I have used the example of the Civic Forum to demonstrate that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister discriminate against an enormous section of the Unionist community to further its political agenda.
I support the motion.

Mr Fraser Agnew: One of the difficulties that I had with the agreement was that it allowed all the evil elements of our society — murderers, thugs, gangsters, racketeers and drug dealers — to sit in the Government of our country. I feel sick in my stomach today when I listen to the representatives of those people lecturing me, as an Orangeman, on what my rights are. I say at the outset, I do not belong to any secret society, and I do not belong to any racist group. To suggest that the Orange Order is a racist organisation is to tell a blatant lie. Lodges in Africa, born out of the zeal of missionaries who went out there, have brought the gospel to many coloured people. I have heard nonsense today from people who know nothing about my culture or my history. They know only that they want to beat us into the ground and take from us our history and culture. I do not want to hear this nonsense; I want justice in this debate for the Orange Order — what is right and just for what I represent.
There is no justice in this proposal. We hear so much about equality, but what is meant by that? This so-called equality discriminates against me, as a representative of the majority community. An attack on the Orange Order is an attack on the Protestant community and on the Unionist community itself. We should never forget it, but that is what we have heard today. David Ervine was right. We heard a sectarian attack from someone whose background hardly justifies attacking other Members or the groups which they represent. An injustice has been done, whether or not one likes the Orange Order.
I represent a broad section of the Protestant community. It is larger than any church, sporting organisation or political party, but it is not represented in the Civic Forum. Yes, members of the Civic Forum may be members of the institution, but the Orange Order itself is not officially recognised or represented there. Therefore, that injustice against the Institution and the Protestant and the Unionist community needs to be rectified. The non-participation of the Orange Order in the Civic Forum represents discrimination against it, even though that body of opinion represents the interests of some 80,000 people plus their families in this community. The Orange Order is far reaching, stretching into 11 countries and it is time that was recognised.
Let us do away with the nonsense that we hear about the Orange Order. For goodness’ sake, those who do not like us and do not know what we represent should learn a little bit about us, speak to us and read about us. We have only to look at recent history to know the background of some of those people across the way and where they are coming from. That is living history, and we know what it represents — death, destruction, bombing and murder, yet we have had to listen to this drivel today.
I am no great lover of quangos or civic forums. I believe in democracy, although I am prepared to work systems, even though I do not particularly like them. However, the Civic Forum was established through the Belfast Agreement and it has to be representative of all the interests in the community. The Orange Order is more representative of the Protestant community than any other individual or group on the Civic Forum. Various bodies and groups may be represented, but what do they represent? Only some groups and, in some instances, nothing but themselves and the Orange Order has blatantly been discriminated against through this process. I have no difficulty whatsoever in lending my support to this Motion.

Mr Paul Berry: I welcome this Motion. At the outset, I declare my interest as a member of the Loyal Institution and one who is proud to be so. There is no doubt that there is a great imbalance in the Civic Forum and there should be proper representation on behalf of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland. It has been pointed out clearly that it is one of the largest organisations across Northern Ireland. Sadly it has been under-represented because of its lack of involvement in the Civic Forum.
Although some Members seem to have ignored his remarks Mr Dodds, who tabled this Motion made it clear that although we were against the Civic Forum it is in place and we believe in our hearts that the Orange Institution should be represented. We do not like its make-up or the fact that it was brought into being, but now that it is there, it is important that members of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland should be fully represented.
Many people are not aware of what the Orange Institution stands for. We have listened to various members today, but one — Dr Dara O’Hagan — was quite sectarian. The Orange Institution is not just about marching around this country. It is our right to march to express our culture and heritage, and that has a lot of positive aspects. On many occasions Orange halls across Northern Ireland have held fund-raising events for charities namely Cystic Fibrosis Trust and Action Cancer. At the weekend I shall attend a fund-raising function for health charities at an Orange hall.
The Orange Order also holds church services across Northern Ireland. Those are positive contributions that it has made in Northern Ireland, although we are often demonised by the enemies of Ulster.
Orange activities are not just for the Protestant community. Children’s meetings held in Orange halls are open to everybody in the community; gospel missions are open to everybody in the community; there are youth clubs and community events — the list goes on. The Orange Order has been very positive in Northern Ireland over a number of years. It is a positive organisation that has stood up for truth and righteousness in this country.
We firmly believe that the Orange Order has been shunned by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and that should be rectified today. As Members of the Assembly we demand that this matter be reviewed with urgency.
The Orange Order has suffered greatly over the past 30 years. We have had our Orange halls attacked. Orange members have been murdered simply because they were members of the Orange Institution. I think of Tullyvallen in my constituency. We have suffered so much, yet we are not represented properly on the Civic Forum. It is most important that our views and concerns are heard, and for that to happen, we must be represented on the Civic Forum.
Our enemies can point to things that have happened — indeed, things that should not have happened — within the institution. One Member referred to the incident on the Ormeau Road that happened in relation to the murder of those people at the bookie’s shop. I have no doubt that all Members in this Chamber who are members of the Orange Institution condemn what happened on the Ormeau Road. We do not stand up for those people who put up their hands and chanted as they were walking along the Ormeau Road. I was totally disgusted when I saw that happening. That does not represent the views of the vast majority of the Orange Institution. However its enemies are quick to point out any fault and wrongdoing. The Orange Institution has been one of the largest and most positive organisations in Northern Ireland and, without it this country would be in a much worse state today. It must be represented.
I support the motion.

Ms Jane Morrice: I remind Members that when comments are directed at particular individuals in the Chamber they come close to infringing parliamentary courtesy.

Mrs Eileen Bell: As always, I will try to keep to the wording of the motion, although I confess that I am at a loss to see what the purpose of the motion is. Has the Grand Orange Lodge made its concerns known to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and to the Community Relations Council’s cultural traditions section? I have heard the concerns of members of the Orange Order and have asked Members from Mr Dodds’s party if the Grand Orange Lodge applied to be considered for nomination to the Civic Forum. I have been told by a number of people that it did not reply to the advertisement inviting applications.
The procedure for selection for nomination was, I believe, carried out in strict adherence to the Nolan principles. It would be very wrong specifically to invite now, as the motion is suggesting, one organisation, however strong it may be, to apply after the process has been gone through and the nomination list closed. I am not opposing the inclusion of the Grand Orange Lodge. What I am saying is that its inclusion should only come about with equity and through the observance of agreed procedures, so that no one feels discriminated against. What is proposed in this motion would patently not be in accord with those procedures.
If the motion succeeds, and immediate steps are taken to appoint a representative, that will beset a dangerous precedent that will fly in the face of the Nolan principles. It could only result in a flow of similar applications from other organisations and individuals who were not selected and who feel just as strongly that they should have been.
I am not going to comment on the general make-up of the Civic Forum. Suffice it to say that, obviously, a lot of hard work has been done to create the most comprehensive and representative forum possible. It will have a heavy task in following a widespread programme of work, which should be relevant and complementary to the Assembly’s work. Throughout the troubles, one of the greatest weaknesses in our society has been the division between political and civic society. That is why my party has been supporting the idea of a civic forum since 1988.
The Civic Forum, if allowed, should reduce this weakness in Northern Ireland. It is vital that correct, transparent methods of selection be maintained at all times in all sectors of society. It is also essential that the Assembly set the right example with the establishment of the Civic Forum. I accept that it is unfortunate that such a significant and traditional organisation should not be admitted, but you can take a white horse to water.
I urge the Grand Lodge to ensure that its concerns are noted in the right places and to apply for membership when the Forum is reviewed in due course. I hope that it will then be included. For that reason, I cannot support this motion.

Mr Jim Shannon: I support the motion. In the past two years the people of Northern Ireland have been forced to stand by as David Trimble and his band of merry capitulators set about deconstructing the principles of Unionism upon which his party was once based. The latest phase of this grand plan of surrender has been the construction of a so-called Civic Forum. Purported to be consultative, the Civic Forum has been created to give businesses, trade unions and the voluntary sector a direct line into the Assembly. Nobody is being fooled about any aspect of the Belfast Agreement and the true thrust of the political process anymore.
Certain pro-agreement parties lauded the Belfast Agreement as a means of ridding Northern Ireland of its quango culture. However, in the very same breath they are breathing life into what is the biggest and most prominent quango to be launched in Northern Ireland.
This unelected, unaccountable body serves a two-fold purpose. First, it was designed as a safety net for the representatives of those organisations who played a crucial role in hoodwinking the Unionist electorate yet did not receive a democratic mandate in the referendum. Secondly, it is clear from the body’s make-up that it exists to support the pro-agreement stances of Nationalism and minority Unionism within the Assembly Chamber and in the Province.
As an integral part of the Belfast Agreement, the Forum was set up as a direct result of the pressure exerted through terrorist atrocity and crime. It exists solely to appease those who are committed to returning to violence, should concessions dry up. Never in the history of democracy has there been any political precedent for giving a place in a Government institution to those who use violence to undermine democratic liberties while retaining and retraining private armies. It is a practical and theoretical impossibility for such an institution to act as the foundation for any sort of democracy.
The stark reality of the Civic Forum is that its membership has a 2:1 Nationalist/Unionist ratio. This is evidence of how the Forum and the agreement are devoid of democratic principle. Nationalism remains committed to undermining the authority of the Crown, the integrity of the United Kingdom and the legitimacy of British culture in Ulster. In practice, the Belfast Agreement was designed with the principles of Irish Nationalism in mind. This intolerance extends to the Civic Forum which, it is claimed, exists to accommodate cultural diversity, despite the fact there has been a failure officially to appoint a member of the largest cultural organisation in Northern Ireland.
The Orange institution, wedded to the principles of democracy and liberty for all, does not merit inclusion under the agreement. To include it would be to accept and acknowledge the organisation, its principles and its right to cultural expression. This is not part of the Nationalist agenda so it is not a surprising development. It is symptomatic of the oft-mentioned new dispensation under which any majority, which has pro-democracy and pro-Union views, is disregarded as being unhelpful and is accused of seeking to return to what are referred to by some as "the bad old days". What were those "bad old days"? Those were the days when a person was free to express his cultural identity peacefully, free from the grip of intolerance, free from intimidation and free from persecution. I take exception to some of the remarks that have been made here today in reference to people, such as the many law-abiding members of my lodge.
These law-abiding people, who have not even had so much as a parking ticket in their lives — in 30, 40, 70 or 80 years — will all find remarks that have been made today scurrilous, aggressive, scandalous and hurtful. It is essential that one cultural identity in Northern Ireland be not promoted over and above another. Unfortunately, as long as Nationalism remains true to its elitist and sectarian principles, and while certain sections of Unionism are prepared to subscribe to the principles of surrender, our culture will never receive the parity or respect which is its due.
The Civic Forum is just one more unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, created out of political expediency and draining the taxpayer of funds which should be diverted to a crumbling Health Service. The Civic Forum exists only as part and parcel of a greater plan to maintain a situation in which IRA/Sinn Féin does not feel the need to put bombs in London to force its political agenda. Mr Trimble has stumbled, jumped and scrambled throughout the process, and he has now fallen flat on his face. The Civic Forum is just one more blunder.

Mr Dermot Nesbitt: The debate has been interesting and quite wide ranging this afternoon. I wish to make some general comments on matters of principle which have permeated the discussion. The Civic Forum is one of the institutions of the Belfast Agreement, and, like it or not, the Belfast Agreement is about inclusiveness. It is about having institutions in Northern Ireland to which the vast majority of people can feel an affinity and an allegiance. That is what we are trying to achieve — a normal society in which democracy works, in which people may not like individual, elected representatives but at least have respect and regard for the institutions in which those representatives operate. The Civic Forum is clearly nestled in inclusiveness and involvement and in getting the community involved in democracy in Northern Ireland after 30 years of violence.
Mr Agnew noted that many references have been made to equality and rights in this debate. There are no such things as Unionist rights, Nationalist rights, orange rights or green rights. We want to see the rights accepted by democracy throughout the world accepted here. We all have rights and responsibilities and rules by which we should abide.
The issue of rules is relevant today; there has been a slight confusion with two words — "organisation" and "sector". When referring to all sections of Northern Ireland, Mr Poots spoke of an Gaelaras as being an exclusive organisation with some right to be there. No organisation has a given right to be there. That was the rule agreed by the Assembly. Rather, sectors have the right. Mr Weir mentioned the trade union sector. He is correct: the trade union sector has a right to be a party to that process, but not ICTU or NIARC or any other trade union organisation. It is not an organisation but a sector which is represented, and people are nominated from that point of view.
Another report came before the Assembly in February 1999, which again clarified where the nominations would come from. They were to come from 10 specified sectors, and not from individual organisations. The report also said that there would be a cultural traditions group and that within that group would be a four-member consortium. An advertisement was placed inviting organisations to apply to the consortium. I use the word "organisation" carefully; an organisation could be part of the consortium, but not individuals.
After the Civic Forum secretariat received a letter from Mr Patton of the Orange Order, it advised him on 11 August that members of the Order could apply. To date no applications have been received. The fact that there is a distinction between an organisation and a sector has permeated this debate. The Orange Order is seen as an organisation, not a sector; it is not eligible to apply.
The criteria used for selection were that on application had to come from an established Northern Ireland cultural organisation that had a proven background in community relations and showed an understanding of, and commitment to, the principles of equity, diversity and interdependence.
When the consortium was formed it decided on its selection system, and details of that were included in the report endorsed by the Assembly. My aim has been to distinguish between an organisation and a sector, the core of this argument.
The Civic Forum is an element of the Belfast Agreement. It is to do with inclusiveness, not an easy issue. Mr Haughey and I have met with groups that feel they have been left out of the system. However, the general consensus is that the Forum is broadly representative. It may not be ideal, and it may not reflect what has been said by the proposers of the debate this afternoon. However, in difficult circumstances we have done our best to put appropriate representatives on it. As my party Colleague Dr Birnie, said this procedure will be reviewed within a year.

Mr Denis Haughey: I want to refer to two general issues. MrPoots and others have alleged that people who are not members of the Orange Order are ignorant of its nature, its beliefs and its function in the community.
Throughout this debate I detected a lack of appreciation of the nature of the Civic Forum and its function in this community as envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement. The purpose of the Forum is to enable this Administration to engage in a structured, formal dialogue with important sectors of the community in the social and economic sphere. Many Members missed that point.
It is not enough to assert that the Orange Order has a right to a special dedicated place in the Civic Forum. You have to provide a cogent and persuasive argument as to why, alone of all organisations — cultural, social, religious, sporting and so on — the Orange Order should have a dedicated place within the Civic Forum. That would not be an argument for a right, but rather for a privileged, different and unique position for the Orange Order. I am prepared to listen to such an argument, but I did not hear one.
If that argument were conceded, exactly the same argument could be made on behalf of the Royal Black Preceptory, the Apprentice Boys of Derry, the Royal Arch Purple and many other organisations on the Unionist side, let alone those on the Nationalist side. I am not going to mention names, because there is no exact parallel to the Orange Order on the Nationalist side of the community. However, there are many organisations on the Nationalist side that are as big, and as culturally significant, as the Orange Order is within the Unionist community. Would we have to examine which of those had a right to a dedicated place within the Civic Forum?
As Minister Nesbitt pointed out, there was no ban on the Orange Order seeking a place within the Civic Forum. In fact, the Orange Order made early contact with the authorities, and was told in no uncertain terms how to go about seeking a place in the Civic Forum. It chose not to do so. That is its right, but a question mark, as well as an eyebrow, has to be raised if subsequent to the appointment of the Civic Forum it comes along and says it was ignored, left out, or discriminated against.
No one in the Administration, nor anyone in this House, would wish to discriminate against or deliberately or unfairly exclude the Orange Order. However, a pathway was there for it to seek entry into the Civic Forum, and it chose not to follow it. It has come along later and, with the support of those who proposed this motion, sought a privileged position, but without any persuasive argument as to why the Orange Order alone should have a dedicated place.
The confusion comes down to something Edwin Poots said. Some Members supporting the motion described the Orange Order as a religious organisation, others as a cultural organisation. Denis Watson described it as an organisation of enormous social significance in the Unionist community, and he referred to the community audits that have borne that out. Mr Poots then said it is all of those things — political, religious, social and cultural — and I do not doubt that he is right. However, if it is a political organisation, should it not have sought representation in this Chamber, which is the political centre of the Administration?
Many of my Colleagues on the other side of the House are members of the Orange Order and can to one degree or another — I see Paul Berry smiling — speak for the Orange Order. This is the place for political argument. If the Orange Order is a religious organisation, is the place for religion not in church? Should it not have sought representation in the Civic Forum through the churches panel? If it is a cultural organisation, should it not have sought representation through the cultural panel? Why did it not do any of these things? No one has answered that question, and therefore I cannot understand why eyebrows are being raised and people are alleging discrimination.
I want to refer to some particular points made? Mr Dodds referred to the fact that the overwhelming majority of those in the Civic Forum are supporters of the agreement. I do not know how he is aware of that, but if it were so, I would not be surprised, given that 72% of the people of this community voted for the agreement. It would not be unreasonable to assume that the majority of those in the Civic Forum are from that 72% of the community.
Mr Weir confessed that he is an agnostic. I have no interest in his personal habits — [Laughter] — but as to his charge that the Forum is a quango, I suggest that he has got it wrong. I refer Members back to what I said at the beginning of the debate. The Forum is a structured body which is meant to communicate between civil society and Administration. The Administration is not going to limit itself to using the Civic Forum as the only means of engaging this community in dialogue, and I suggest that this is one of the ways in which this Administration can distinguish itself from what went before, in that we engage in honest, open dialogue with civil society, not just through the Civic Forum, but through many other channels.
Mr Boyd alleged that the Orange Order had been excluded from the Civic Forum. In fact, it was not. The path that would have led to their having representation on it was open for them to take. Monica McWilliams, in a telling speech, pointed out that a position of privilege, not of right, was being sought for the Orange Order.
I congratulate my own Colleague Ms Hanna. She made a telling and constructive contribution to the debate in which she reiterated the confusion about the Orange Order and the fact that it did not seek a representative position through the normal channels but wished to take a privileged route into representation.
I want to refer to a point that Mr Shannon made. He alleged that the composition of Civic Forum favoured Nationalists as opposed to Unionists by about two to one. That is not true, as the community background of the members of the Civic Forum is, in so far as they declare themselves, 55% Unionist and 45% Nationalist. That is roughly reflective of the balance in the wider community. Members ought to acquaint themselves with the nature and purpose of the forum and appreciate that it is not appropriate to seek a privileged position for one organisation above any other. If an organisation feels it has a contribution to make, it should try to get into the Civic Forum through the normal channels.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I am grateful to all those who participated in the debate in a constructive way. However, to listen to Sinn Féin/IRA spokespersons talk about the bigotry and hatred of the Orange Order smacks of the utmost hypocrisy, when they have been guilty of the murder of Protestants, Unionists and members of the Orange Order, many of whom were going about their ordinary daily business and many of whom were attending their places of worship. It is nauseating to have to listen to people berating an organisation which is Christian in character and full of decent people. This organisation has been berated and denigrated by representatives of an organisation that has used murder, bombing, maiming, racketeering, and intimidation against innocent people — every foul and heinous crime in the book. The Sinn Féin/IRA contribution to this debate goes a long way towards explaining to the vast majority in the Province the reasons why they are unfit to be in the government of Northern Ireland.
They talked about the Orange Order’s having no contribution to make to the Civic Forum. Of course, someone who attempted to murder an RUC officer — and only failed to do so because his gun jammed — does have something to contribute to the Civic Forum. However, the largest Protestant organisation in this country has nothing to contribute, according to Sinn Féin/IRA. As my Colleague, Mr Watson from Upper Bann noted, the Prime Minister has been in contact with representatives of the Order today, pointing out the valuable role that that organisation plays in civic society. This is a Prime Minister who is so often relied on and quoted by the pro-agreement parties represented here. However, his evaluation of the Orange Order is dismissed.
I flagged up in advance many of the points that I expected to be raised during the debate, but that did not stop Members of the Opposition from making them. However, given the way in which most of their speeches were delivered, I suspect they did not listen to a number of points that we raised, preferring, as they did, to read prepared scripts. Why let a few facts get in the way of your pre-prepared speech, written by a scriptwriter and hand-delivered to you?
In reality — [Interruption]
We always let the facts speak for themselves, and a number of facts stand out. I would be grateful for silence, and some good manners, from the hecklers in the opposite corner. I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you will be assiduous in treating equally all parties in the House. We listened with great courtesy to most of what has been said, even when Members attacked the Orange Order and the DUP on these issues.
At the outset Mr Weir said he suspected that there would be no Ulster Unionist Members speaking, apart from himself. As it turned out, Dr Birnie rose to the challenge and made a small contribution, but he was the only Member from the Ulster Unionist ranks to do so. I am disappointed that Mr Trimble, who made these appointments, along with Mr Mallon, has failed to show up in the Chamber to listen to the criticisms and some of the points that have been made. Under the legislation the nominations are made by them.
Dr Birnie talked about the coherence of the motion, and said that no action could be taken. On the contrary, the Deputy First Minister said in his speech on 25 September 2000 that if it was found that the Civic Forum did not include a wide range of opinions and views, swift action would be taken to remedy that. I ask the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to do something, given the outcry and the concerns that have been expressed about the non-representation of the Grand Lodge. In the light of what has been said since the nominations, I take him up on his offer and challenge him — a challenge to which the junior Ministers did not respond — to review this and review it quickly.
Mr Haughey said that the Civic Forum is not a quango. It is very much a quango — it is unelected, and it exists to duplicate what the Assembly Committees will be doing, if its members do their job correctly. I do not accept what the junior Minister said about quangos.
It has been repeated many times by Members, and by the Minister, that the Orange Order did not apply for membership of the Civic Forum. That is not the case at all. If they had listened to what was said by Mr Watson and me — and Mr Watson is in a position to know this — they would have taken that on board, instead of repeating what is clearly not the case.
The method by which nominations and appointments were to be made was set out on 16 February 1999. We voted against them at the time and anticipated some of the inevitable problems, and we have been vindicated. The Orange Order realised that and made contact with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It was advised about what it should do and it followed that advice. As Mr Watson has already explained, two members of the Grand Orange of Ireland did apply for membership of the Civic Forum.
Those applications were unsuccessful, but it remained open to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, when it came to their nominations, to appoint a representative of an organisation that had not been included, in the same way that they decided to appoint a representative of a political party that had failed to get selected on any other criterion.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Will the Member give way?

Mr Nigel Dodds: No. The Member has had her opportunity to speak. I am winding up and want to deal with as many points as I can.
That member of a political party was specifically appointed, according to the First Minister, to ensure that balance and inclusion did occur. In the light of the nominations that came forward through the selection process, the First Minister saw his job as ensuring that balance and inclusion occurred. He took the step of including the leader of a political party that had not been selected. What did he do to the Grand Lodge of Ireland? He chose not to include a representative of that, but to include another member of the Orange Order. That person has his own abilities and talents. I cast no aspersions on him personally, but he is not a representative of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, and the Grand Orange would not have put him forward. That is the point.
The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister had the opportunity, in their nominations, to do what they said the purpose of their nominations was — to ensure that balance and inclusion did occur. They used that argument to justify the appointment of the leader of a party that had not been selected under the normal selection process. They chose not to do that when it came to a representative of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland. It is clear — and there can be no excuse for this — that a deliberate decision was taken that no representative of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland would be included.
One has to ask why that should be. Perhaps someone in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister shared Mr Ervine’s views on the anti-agreement stance of the Orange Order. Other people represented on the Civic Forum of people have, in the past, espoused violence and murder as a means of achieving their ends. When there was an opportunity for Mr Trimble and Mr Mallon to practice inclusive democracy, as opposed to just talking about it, their actions fell well short of their words. All the attempts of the SDLP and others to justify it simply do not hold water. There is no balance, as Mr Watson has said, if the epitome of Protestant culture and heritage is missing. A number of Members, including Mr Hilditch, pointed out that if the First Minister is trying to break the link between his party and the Orange Order, it is no great surprise that he should be taking such a vindictive attitude towards the Grand Lodge.
There is an opportunity to right this wrong. Mr Haughey said that I had said that a majority of Civic Forum appointees were pro-agreement. If he checks the record he will find that what I said was that the Civic Forum was, with a few honourable exceptions, made up entirely of pro-agreement failed politicians and ex-terrorists. There is very little room for an anti-agreement point of view. If he checks the record and the list of appointments, he will find that that is the case. Where is the inclusive democracy there?
We then face the red herring argument that because we opposed the creation of the Civic Forum we are not entitled to talk about the composition of it. We are perfectly entitled to do that, and we said so on 16 February 1999 in this House when there was a debate on the means by which the Civic Forum would be composed and nominated. That is why we took part in that debate. We took the opportunity then; we did not come along later and criticise. We voted against it at that point, along with Colleagues who pointed out some of the problems that were going to arise, not least that no criteria were set down by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on how they would use their appointments.
I remember that some of the other parties that were in favour of the Civic Forum said in principle that this was an agreeable mission. There was no indication from Mr Trimble or MrMallon on how they would use those appointments. The reality, as we can now see, is that Mr Mallon used one of his appointments to select someone who does not live or work in Northern Ireland. Mr Trimble appointed someone who could not get elected and someone who he thought was a better representative for Orange issues than the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland. If these principles were applied when approaching community organisations, voluntary organisations and others, and if those sectors were not allowed to appoint their own representatives, how should that be viewed?
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Donovan McClelland] in the Chair)
Many Members have spoken eloquently and passionately about the Orange Order, about its role in civic society, about the work the Order has done over the years, about the loyalty it evokes among tens of thousands of people in Northern Ireland and about the grave injustice that is being done by not having a voice from the Orange Institution — and from Grand Lodge in particular — on the Civic Forum. Today the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, wrote to representatives of the Grand Lodge to praise its role in society. It is remarkable that, on the same day, representatives of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have come to the House to reinforce the snub to the Orange Order, which has already been delivered.
Mr Nesbitt said "We have done our best." That was his comment on this process. Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to tell Mr Nesbitt that the vast majority of the people whom we represent, and those in the ranks of the Orange Order, will not accept that their best is good enough. I trust that the House will support the motion.
Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 21; Noes 52.
Ayes
Fraser Agnew, Roy Beggs, Paul Berry, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Maurice Morrow, Edwin Poots, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells. [Tellers: William Hay and David Hilditch]
Noes
Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Alex Attwood, Billy Bell, Eileen Bell, Esmond Birnie, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Joan Carson, Seamus Close, John Dallat, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Reg Empey, David Ervine, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Billy Hutchinson, John Kelly, James Leslie, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, David McClarty, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Alan McFarland, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Dermot Nesbitt, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, George Savage, John Tierney, David Trimble, Jim Wilson. [Tellers: Gerry McHugh and John Tierney]
Question accordingly negatived.

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

Prof Monica McWilliams: I beg to move
That this Assembly agrees to apply for admission to membership of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, such membership to be effective immediately on approval of the application by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and to abide by the provisions of the constitution of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association; that the required membership fee be paid to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association; and that this motion be communicated to the secretariat of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association immediately following agreement.
This motion is timely considering that the Programme for Government outlined that one of its themes is to promote Northern Ireland and build networks on an international scale. One of my reasons for proposing the motion is because the parties in the Executive have an opportunity to meet with other parliamentarians through the British-Irish Council, the North/South Ministerial Council and the various parliamentary forums that have been established. However, it is unlikely that the smaller parties will ever have that opportunity.
One of the benefits to NorthernIreland has been that we have learned a great deal from other countries — either those that have gone through conflicts similar to ours, or those with Parliaments similar to our own. That is one reason why I am making this proposal. Ours is a new Assembly and I have often found that, rather than constantly looking inward, it is extremely important and useful for us to look outward.
At the invitation of the CPA, I attended a recent meeting involving all member countries — those that are in the Commonwealth and those that are not. Members need to know that it is possible to attend such meetings as an observer. The meeting, which was about the role of women in public life, was one of the most useful that I have ever attended. I met women Ministers from India, South Africa, Canada, Australia and many of the smaller countries.
Currently, 142 national, state, provincial and territorial Parliaments are members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Our Assembly would benefit from membership. Member states said that, against all the obstacles, they too have found innovative and imaginative ways of introducing policies, getting resources and producing legislation on issues that are culturally sensitive in their countries and that challenge and confront the old, traditional ways of doing things. That says a great deal for those who work in a country such as India. Having learned from that experience and having spent time with those working in other Parliaments, I feel that we are missing out by not being part of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
It should also be noted that the CPA is a charitable organisation, and its constitution states that, should it ever be wound up, its funds would go to charity. Lest there be any misapprehension that the CPA is a mysterious organisation that has been increasingly trying to get people to join the Commonwealth by the back door, I must say that that is not the case. The association involves countries that are part of the Commonwealth, including the new nations — in particular, the provinces of SouthAfrica and of India — as well as observers. However, I must propose that we become a full member and pay our membership accordingly.
Currently, 14,000 Members of different Parliaments throughout the world are part of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Over the past 10 years more than 30new Parliaments and other legislatures have joined. Only legislative bodies are entitled to do so. As the Assembly is a devolved legislature, it is entitled to become a full member. It is important for those of us who are concerned that military dictatorships should not be in the association to note that Pakistan is no longer a member. Following the 1999 coup that country is no longer a parliamentary democracy.
We would also benefit greatly from discussing global political issues, such as the situation in Cyprus. The association also has networks and databases. Speaking from my own interest, I would tell Members that the association has a worldwide database of women parliamentarians. As we are so few — not just in this Assembly, where we are only 14, but in other Assemblies — we would benefit greatly, in terms of both procedures and how we connect with minorities elsewhere, were we enabled to join our colleagues, in this case our sisters, from other Parliaments.
South Africa went through its conflict and emerged from it. In the initial stages of establishing the national Parliament and the provincial Assemblies, 200 South Africans — new Members of Parliament — were trained by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in parliamentary procedures. No doubt that was of great assistance to them.
South Africa’s is a young Parliament; ours is a very young Assembly. Being able to connect with the new Parliament and provincial Assemblies of South Africa would allow us to examine our own procedures and see whether they fit this Assembly. We have said that we will not follow Westminster just because it has an old, established way of doing things. We can borrow good practice from elsewhere.
If you do not know about those examples of good practice, you cannot borrow them, and this network of legislatures would enable an exchange of ideas and information.

Mr David McClarty: I am pleased to support the motion. Renewed membership of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) would add a further dimension to the growing status of the Assembly. The preamble to the constitution of the CPA establishes that it was set up by
"Commonwealth parliamentarians who, irrespective of gender, race, religion or culture, being united by community of interest, respect for the rule of law and individual rights and freedoms, and by pursuit of the positive ideals of parliamentary democracy" .
We in this Assembly should aspire to membership of an organisation that promotes such noble, pluralist ideals. Some Members among us may oppose the motion through some twisted and unshakeable anti-British and anti-Commonwealth prejudice. I challenge any Member to read that preamble and tell me how it fits in with the myth of being beaten into the clay through seven heroic centuries. The fact is that the CPA is a community of legislatures, committed to furthering democratic ideals in the modern era.
Regrettably, there are those in the Assembly who themselves do not live up to those democratic ideals. We might be right to wonder whether we are asking a lot of the CPA to accommodate an Assembly which, while itself democratically elected and committed to the delivery of accountable democracy, has within it Ministers whose commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means is, at best, questionable. However, I do not think that the rest of us, who are committed unquestionably to democracy, should have our place in the international community undermined by those who are in default on their Pledge of Office.
We may be permitted to hope that our corporate subscription to the democratic principles of the CPA will contribute to dragging those who still have difficulties with democracy into the twenty-first century. I still believe that the best way to persuade people of the benefits of democracy is to expose them to it at every opportunity. We must not miss the opportunity to rejoin the CPA.
Not for the first time we find ourselves lagging behind Scotland and Wales, where branches have already been established. For them, of course, it is first-time membership; for us, it would be re-establishment. Northern Ireland first joined the then Empire Parliamentary Association in 1924. We remained active members until our membership was set in abeyance in 1973. A brief re-establishment in 1974 was followed by our membership’s again being put in abeyance in 1975. We have remained in that position ever since.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Will the Member remind the Assembly that the word "empire" has since been dropped and that it is no longer in the title of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

Mr David McClarty: I agree.
In spite of that, Ulster Unionists have continued to play an active role in the CPA through the National parliament at Westminster. I make no apology for supporting the motion, because membership of the CPA fits my Ulster Unionist belief in pluralism, democracy and the rule of law. I commend the Women’s Coalition for raising this matter. If other parties oppose this forward looking initiative, this opportunity to bring us into an organisation that accommodates far-flung legislatures in Canada, Mozambique, Jamaica and India, those parties must ask themselves where they stand in the modern world.
I look forward to this Assembly having its membership of the CPA confirmed. I hope that we will still be here in 2011 to join in the centenary celebrations of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I support the motion.

Mr Jim Wells: The DUP gives this motion its full support. We believe that Northern Ireland is already part of the Commonwealth by virtue of its status as an integral part of the United Kingdom. Our athletes participate in the Commonwealth Games, and we believe that it would be a tremendous benefit for the Assembly to join this association.
The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has a tremendous breadth of interest and experiences ranging from India — the largest democracy in the world — to many small Caribbean islands that have only recently adopted democracy. There is much that we can learn and things that others can learn from us. I believe that nothing but good can come from this. Our colleagues in Scotland and Wales have joined, and, in the interests of parity, we should follow that lead and join also.
Perhaps one thing we can teach our colleagues in other Commonwealth countries is that any form of democracy which is sold on the basis of a Prime Minister’s lies and of promises made but not kept, and which enables terrorists to be allowed into government without the decommissioning of their weapons, is doomed to failure. If other small democracies, on an off day, think that they might go down the road that Northern Ireland adopted under the so-called Good Friday Agreement, perhaps we could tell them to think of the consequences and look at what happened to us. We could suggest to them that they adopt a structure that is based on genuine non-violence and real democracy.
But apart from that I think that we can learn. We have had the privilege of welcoming many of these parliamentary groups to the Assembly. I, for some reason, seem to be picked by my party to meet many of these groups, and it has been a privilege to do so. I have met representatives from Canada, Australia, and Zimbabwe — or Rhodesia, as it used to be called — and have had useful exchange of views with these parliamentarians.
I hear that there might be Members who are thinking of opposing this motion. What is their motivation? What can they possibly lose by supporting the motion?

Mr Edwin Poots: They are racists.

Mr Jim Wells: Is there an element of racism? Do they not want to be associated with people of different races, persuasions and religions from other parts of the world? Have they something to fear from meeting these people and learning from them? Or is it just that their party political dogma is that anything remotely attaching itself to the British link is to be opposed?
I am proud to support the motion, and I congratulate Ms McWilliams, Member for South Belfast, for bringing it forward. My party will throw its full weight behind it and give any help it can on the issue in the months ahead.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle It is interesting that Mr Wells related what he anticipated to be our attitude to this motion. His party refuses to go into the Executive with people elected to this Assembly, and it refuses to participate in any North/South business with its nearest neighbour on the other side of the border, yet Mr Wells accuses Sinn Féin of racism and anticipates that we will not engage with a wide range of people.
It will not surprise anyone in the Assembly to hear that we, as Irish Republicans, have difficulty and deep concerns about this motion. That is not from a desire to deny networking opportunities but from the fact that the legacy of the British Commonwealth has negative connotations, particularly for people of a Nationalist and Republican persuasion in Ireland.
We do not want to frustrate opportunities for networking, and we believe that many opportunities for networking among parliaments already exist. They are not limited in any shape or fashion to the four parties that make up the Executive in this Assembly. We would prefer for the Assembly to deal, in the first instance, with some of the parliamentary links that were envisaged under the Good Friday Agreement, such as an interparliamentary organisation between ourselves and the Dáil, which has yet to be fully realised. We would prefer to get these relationships in order before considering other formal relationships or joining any other parliamentary organisations.
Anybody from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association listening to the two Unionist Members might not be waiting with bated breath to see whether we enter into this. Their attitude appears to be "We will go along and join this, but we apologise for some of the people that we are bringing with us." DavidMcClarty’s attitude is very condescending. Talk about people and their democratic credentials: his party brought us one-party rule for 50years, introduced gerrymandering to this part of Ireland for so many years and disenfranchised a large section of the population represented by this side of the Chamber. His is a condescending attitude that we reject entirely. We are here on our democratic credentials and it is time that MrMcClarty and his party recognised that.
When we establish a formal and proper relationship with our neighbouring island — and that is my aspiration as an Irish republican — we can examine the relationships we have with certain parliamentary organisations that take their existence from the British Commonwealth. Until such times as we establish proper relationships on our own island and with our neighbouring island, SinnFéin, as Republicans, will not be supporting this motion.

Mr David Ford: It is unfortunate that a motion introduced in an attempt to be uncontentious has created such difficulties across the Chamber. I share most of the concerns expressed by most Members about what other people have said or are about to say.
I commend MonicaMcWilliams and JaneMorrice for bringing the motion forward. To have such a petty bicker about an issue like this shows how much this Assembly needs to broaden its contacts in the wider world. Those of us who had the pleasure of meeting members of the Quebec National Assembly benefited from learning something from their experiences. Some were of relevance to us and some not. It was an indication of how we can benefit from those wider links.
The Commonwealth is not the only link that we should be looking to. ConorMurphy referred to parts of the Good Friday Agreement that clearly specified that there should be a link between the Assembly and the Oireachtas and that there would be an encouragement to links between the elected institutions represented in the British/Irish Council. If I have a problem with this motion, it is that it has come forward at this stage without any reference to those other links that it would have been useful to explore at the same time.
We have obligations under the Agreement that, as the FirstMinister told me a few weeks ago, are not the Executive’s business but the business of this Chamber. I will see that the Business Committee follows that up. I hope that the Executive, which is the only body currently involved in the British/Irish Council, will encourage links with other bodies, particularly the other devolved institutions in Scotland and Wales and the other institutions represented in the British/Irish Council. That is for the future. At present, we must face this motion, and I urge the House to support it in the terms in which it was proposed by MonicaMcWilliams, if not necessarily in the terms in which others supported it.

Mr David Ervine: I support the motion, but I am confused and imagine that when the Women’s Coalition arrive home this evening to have their evening meal with their partners, they might begin to understand the close relationship between the word "commendation" and the word "condemnation". I am not sure which one they would feel to be more beneficial coming from certain parts of this Chamber.
This is a valuable contribution on the day that we launch our Programme for Government. While there may be difficulties with that, it embraces the suggestion that an outward-looking Northern Ireland will be a more prosperous country. It will be a Northern Ireland that can learn and teach, and the first thing it might learn is that if Zimbabweans came here, there had to be terrorists in their Government — unless, of course, they were Rhodesians who behaved like terrorists before the terrorists who were the Zimbabweans became the Government. You know what I mean. You might talk about JomoKenyatta or ArchbishopMakarios.
Many other arenas of past conflict against my Government have now developed into warm, reasonable and sensible relationships, irrespective of whether they began as terrorists in government. The recognition of the need to explore and explain and the importance of networking ensure that not only are benefits gained but a two-way street can be offered. That could mean the African nations, or Malaysia, or perhaps — and I say this not in any sense of hurt or attempt to inflict hurt — the Irish Government, which may, through Dáil Éireann, believe that this is a worthy body to join.
It is a body that is not about agendas but about hope, the future and experience. It is a body where we can all learn. Many of its members have come through massive change and completely embraced the path of democracy. Some of them still struggle, as we still struggle to define our future and how it might fit with the rest of the world. I commend the Women’s Coalition and their motion, irrespective of how they may feel about the sense of duplicity that apparently appears from time to time when they suggest anything.

Mr Alex Attwood: I have two comments on the debate so far. The contribution of Conor Murphy, despite how some might portray it, was quite thoughtful. His argument was that this is not an issue about membership of this association. It is more an issue of timing than of principle, and, while he might not concur with that characterisation of his comments, I think that it is accurate.

Mr Jim Wells: Does the hon Member think for one moment that if we had the links that Mr Murphy was requesting with the Irish Parliament and then proposed that we join the Commonwealth Parliament Association, he would be on his feet saying "Hear, hear. I agree with that."? Does he honestly think that that would happen?

Mr Alex Attwood: Mr Wells should never underestimate the ability of people to change their attitudes. Many people in this Chamber have radically transformed their attitudes, and will change them in the future — including myself and perhaps, one day, Mr Wells. There is a maturity emerging in political society, or at least in elements of political society in the North.
When the Good Friday Agreement states that there shall be equality and parity of esteem, sometimes it means accepting what other people value even if you do not value it yourself.
The SDLP is bringing that perspective to this debate. We as a community do not have any natural identification with the concept or the institutions of commonwealth, but we know that there are people in this Chamber and in our community who value that concept and that practice. We will be supporting this motion, primarily because of that principle and because we honour the Good Friday Agreement when it refers to fair treatment and equality. It is a matter of our respect for other traditions and communities and for what they say and value. In this instance, its manifestation is the Commonwealth Association. For that reason we will be accepting this motion.
We do say, however — and this has been hinted at elsewhere — that this issue and the wider relationships between this Parliament and other Parliaments should have been addressed in a wider context, including that of the relationship between the Dáil and the Assembly, as possibly envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement. As Monica McWilliams pointed out, there is value and purpose in relationships with other parliamentary associations and Parliaments around the world, inside and outside the Commonwealth. That should have been the context of this debate, and in that context perhaps Sinn Féin — perhaps all of us — could have signed up to associations or relationships with other parliamentary associations, not just with that of the Commonwealth Association.
Jim Wells is quite right. People in the North have something to share with the rest of the world — not necessarily the issues of "terrorists in government", inclusive government and weapons. Where we have most to share with other societies is what the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said in Belfast in December two years ago: the world is most interested in the Good Friday Agreement because of its issues of rights. What they understand best are the rights provisions of the Good Friday Agreement. The greatest concern is rights, not who is in government or what happens to weapons. It is the issue of rights. Membership of the association may enable us to share with it our experience of rights and the denial and future protection of rights.
I will not deny for one minute that in our community the concept of Commonwealth has in the past had unhappy images of exploitation, empire and economic expansionism.
It is therefore difficult for our community fully to understand what the Unionists value and to identify with that. However, we want to show respect, now and in the future, for a principle that will be espoused throughout the Chamber in coming weeks. We will accept the motion.
If the Unionists Members are arguing for membership of the interparliamentary association then hopefully this weekend they will not argue for withdrawal from interjurisdictional associations in the country.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I have learned one thing in the course of this debate. Following Mr Wells’s hint that he is the acceptable face of the DUP, I would like to second my Colleague Mr David McClarty in strongly supporting the motion. We commend Ms McWilliams for bringing the motion to the House. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has a number of fine aspirations: the rule of law; individual rights and parliamentary democracy. Membership of the Association has not always resulted in perfect adherence to such principles, but over time the Commonwealth has acted as a mechanism to encourage countries to move in the right direction.
Referring back to Mr Ervine’s comments, I think that given the conditions that we experience in the Assembly and in the Province, we might learn from the experience of other countries where parties and politicians have successfully made a transition from paramilitarism to non-violence.
The case for this motion is that we are talking about restoring a link that existed in the past. We had a branch membership in the old Stormont Parliament from 1924 to 1975. It is possible to meet two main objections which have been raised. First, there is no incompatibility between support for the motion and the idea that, when the time is right and circumstances allow, there should be interparliamentary links between, for example, the Assembly and the Dáil or between the various devolved and national-level Governments within the British Isles.
The second objection seems to be that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is contaminated by historical association with the rights or, as some would see it, the wrongs of the record of the British Empire. There is an answer to that. Mozambique has joined the Commonwealth and is now represented in the Parliamentary Association. Mozambique was never a member of the British empire; it was a Portuguese colony. Let me point out, for those who feel sensitive about the subject, that there is no connection with British imperialism. I reiterate that the Ulster Unionist Party fully supports this timely motion.
Question agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly agrees to apply for admission to membership of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, such membership to be effective immediately on approval of the application by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and to abide by the provisions of the constitution of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association; that the required membership fee be paid to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association; and that this motion be communicated to the secretariat of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association immediately following agreement.

Zero Waste Strategy

Mr Mick Murphy: I beg to move the following motion:
This Assembly calls upon the Minister of the Environment to agree a waste management strategy which would progressively work towards zero waste targets. This Assembly believes that such a strategy is vital to the future economic, environmental and social well-being of our society. Further, this Assembly calls for such targets to be achieved within a generation — that is, by the year 2025. This Assembly further calls upon the Minister of the Environment to initiate joint actions with his southern counterpart to develop an all-island zero waste management strategy.
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. This motion is very appropriate, especially given that this is Environment Week. As political leaders and activists, many in the Assembly have worked closely with local communities on environmental and planning issues. They have been lobbied on a diverse range of environmental projects, such as protecting the Black Mountain and Cavehill overlooking Belfast, the consequences of fly dumping and the raising of public awareness about the environmental impacts of gold mining in Tyrone, and lignite mining around Lough Neagh. Some of us have been asked to support campaigns against the construction of incinerators. Two main lessons have been learned. First, collective action by communities, which gained support from the general public, can achieve real and positive change and solve environmental problems. This also leads to an overall heightening of public awareness of the importance of environmental issues.
The second lesson that we have learned is that environmental problems are not only a local or national concern, they can have global implications too. Public concern is widespread about issues such as ozone depletion; the greenhouse effect; legal and illegal emissions from nuclear installations; the commercial harvesting of biogenetic engineering crops; and the destruction of the rain forest.
How do you solve these problems? Where do you start looking? A local Assembly, even one with strictly limited devolved authority, is the obvious place to seek redress on these important matters.
Simply stated, the problem is that we as a society of producers and consumers are producing too much waste. The EU Commission distinguished between different types of waste, and it defined 27 categories of waste under EU Directive 78/319/EEC. The main category is solid waste, which is domestic waste, industrial and commercial waste, and litter and waste from mining, quarries, constructions and agriculture, including sludge and semi-sludge, that cannot be discharged into water and air.
There are also definitions for toxic and dangerous waste, as well as what the EU defines as priority waste. These include used tyres; end-of-life vehicles; construction, demolition and packaging waste; and waste from electrical equipment, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and solvents. There is a landfill crisis, and we are needlessly producing waste. Many of the industries whose goods we consume and export are producing dangerous toxic waste, which is polluting the air we breathe, our rivers, our water supplies and our seas. The solutions which they use for containing waste are failing.
The most common method of dealing with waste is to dig a hole and bury it. As late as 1980 it was assumed that we could solve the problem by digging increasingly bigger holes to contain the waste. This method is better known as "landfill", and it is no longer practical or accepted.
There are two significant problems with the use of landfill sites. First, many landfill sites are sources of pollution in themselves. Pollutants from the waste stored in these sites are leached into the water system of surrounding areas, causing damage to the local environment. Current EU regulations reflect the grave danger to the atmosphere posed by methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The second pressing problem is that available sites are running out.
Throughout Ireland, local government bodies are responsible for the maintenance of landfill sites, so they are simply established in those areas where there is least public resistance. The environmental sustainability of such sites has come a very poor second to local authorities’ need to find sites.
It is clear that waste is — to quote Mary Douglas — "matter in the wrong place". The next obvious question is whether a means of redirecting this matter into the right place is needed. If waste paper, glass and metal make up the bulk of most municipal waste streams, they could be recovered to take the place of primary materials, creating the environmental and financial benefits of a secondary material industry.
The island of Ireland is establishing itself as a leading player in the new economics of information and communications-led technology. Few economic sectors will be left untouched by the knowledge-led revolution. Local communities celebrate their commitments to knowledge-based industries, and political leaders rush to champion their towns and cities as the new "Silicon Valley". Unfortunately the waste management sector has proved resilient to the influence of a smart Government and new technologies.
Unless we address the gap that persists between the rapid development in smart technology and the new economics of resource efficiency, Ireland’s "Silicon Valley" will inherit a waste management infrastructure which was originally designed for the nineteenth century.
Over the coming decades our society will have to adapt. Zero waste represents a new planning approach and defines the discipline required to create a more viable pattern of interactions with our natural world, including the principles of conserving resources, minimising pollution, maximising employment opportunities, and providing the greatest degree of local economic self-reliance.
The following guiding principle on zero waste must be translated into practical policies and measures: responsibility for waste management must pass from the taxpayer and local authorities to the manufacturers and producers of goods who can ensure that the design of their product and packaging includes plans for the recovery of the material. Local authority engineers and other officers must be retrained to depart progressively from landfill and incinerator approaches to waste disposal and to adopt a modernised procedure. These techniques aim to create enabling frameworks for producers and consumers to increase the resource productivity and reduce hazards through the design of products and processes.
Manufacturers could close the loop by using materials collected through recycling programmes to produce their new products and packaging. There could be initiatives to encourage households and businesses to reduce waste and to recycle and a scheme could be introduced to bring about changes in waste disposal and material recovery.
These changes would involve phasing out existing disposal methods — landfill and incinerators — and waste which produces pollution in our air, on our land and in our sea. The true long-term environmental impact and health implications of such methods of disposal should be taken into account and must eventually lead to the withdrawal of publicly funded subsidies such as the EC Non-Fossil Fuel obligation. In that context, I wish to welcome the recent comments of Steven Byers, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He has announced that the British Government intend to exclude energy from waste facilities for such incentive schemes and instead to focus resources on genuine sources of renewable energy. This announcement should send a warning about financial uncertainties surrounding incinerator technology, uncertainties which do not feature in the consultation report from local authorities.
We propose investing in a new jobs sector for waste recycling. The potential for job creation in this area is promising, especially when we factor in the opportunity for creating local enterprise.
The development of a new market for these services is a powerful response to Ireland’s wasteful status quo. Markets are a function of political and cultural preference and often require regulation and incentive structures to establish the viability of desirable technology and design. An all-Ireland inland scheme of incentives for the development of this market is required to support a zero waste strategy. The economic playing field must be levelled. Sustainable development is on the lips of policy makers at all levels, but it is all too easy to adopt an abstract commitment which is somewhat removed from today’s concrete decisions. Waste management and material recovery strategies will be a litmus test of the extent to which policy makers have internalised the rationale and regulations of sustainability and agreed disclosure.
I ask the House to support the motion.

Mr David Ford: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all the words after "to" in line 1 and add
"set a target of 50% of domestic and non-domestic waste to be recycled or composted within 10 years, with further progressive reductions in line with best economic and environmental practice in other European regions.
This Assembly further calls upon the Minister of the Environment to initiate joint actions with his southern counterpart towards this end."
At first the motion seemed attractive in principle. It deals with an area which we need to take seriously and in which we have not performed very well in the recent past. However, when I read its wording I came to the conclusion, and my Colleagues agreed with me, that the detail was suffering a little from "Dallat syndrome". My political handbook for 2000-01 defines this as a motion which is fairly good in principle but whose words do not quite add up as they were meant to in practice.
This is probably the first time I have ever stood up in the Chamber and accused Sinn Féin of being too idealistic for this world, but I fear that with this motion, that is indeed the case. There is no doubt that the party has dark green credentials in one aspect of our political life, but I fear that the dark green credentials in this motion go even further than those of most of the environmental groups who lobby us on matters like this.
In September I asked the Minister of the Environment about recycling targets. The response, which I received last week, referred to the Department of the Environment’s setting a target of 15% of waste to be recycled by the year 2005.
It is a measure of how poorly we were governed under direct rule that measures that went through in England, Wales and Scotland were not carried forward into legislation in Northern Ireland and Ministers made no effort to encourage such targeting.
At least the new Minister has established that much, and the waste management strategy that resulted from his efforts and Mr Howarth’s during the suspension of devolution means that we are, starting to move forward. There is no doubt that the current talk of 15% in five years’ time is well below the targets that have been set for councils across the water, and it is inadequate for our needs. It is also significantly below the best practice that is being achieved elsewhere.
In Great Britain a number of councils are close to achieving the 50% referred to in the amendment, not in 10 years’ time, but in the next year or so. I have figures showing that Eastleigh in Hampshire has already exceeded 42% and that the London borough of Sutton expects to achieve 50% recycling by the end of this financial year. Our 50% is fits in with that best practice.
Across the water the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, having gone through one set of criteria for recycling, has now removed waste composting from its targets. This comes at a time when it is acknowledged that putrescent waste going into a landfill is the major cause of methane pollution and leachate run-off.
If the Minister responds to this debate I hope he can give us an assurance that he is not going to follow the route of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and that he will set better targets for Northern Ireland. No doubt his experience as a councillor will enable him to follow through the implications of that.
One of the problems in Northern Ireland is that over the last decade or so, councils district gave every household a large wheelie bin. Nothing encourages large amounts of waste to be thrown out more than doubling the size of a bin.
Speaking as a member of one of the best local authorities in this respect (Antrim), I can say that even there we have — [Interruption] Calm yourselves. Even there a black bin containing up to 240 litres of rubbish is collected every week, and a blue bin containing up to 120 litres of paper, plastic and aluminium is collected every four weeks. We need to do something to redress the balance if we are ever to stop putting vast amounts of waste into landfill and get real recycling underway.
The authorities that have achieved most in England and Wales have introduced two equal-sized bins with alternate week collection — one week for the recyclables, and one week for the landfill. We could make significant advances in this way. One council has claimed a 30% increase in its recycling in less than three years by the introducing that scheme combined with the provision of green composting bins to reduce the amount of putrescent waste that goes into the bins, thereby getting major benefits for its landfill management.
In Northern Ireland three groups of councils have started to build on the Department’s waste management strategy. Whatever the DUP may think, this is not just a Northern Ireland issue. As I understand it, Donegal County Council is part of the north-west consortium along with Strabane District Council, Derry City Council and others. We should look for the appropriate level of cross-border supervision, support and co-operation — although I would not wish to see Northern Ireland becoming the dumping ground for the entire island, which might be inferred from an all-island as opposed to a cross-border strategy.
The 50% target set out in the amendment is realistic in the sense that it is optimistic and attainable. There is no point in having a target that we could not reach, and no point in having one that is reached too easily.
The zero waste target set out in the original motion would create difficulties. The only way we could possibly achieve a zero waste target would be by incineration. Incinerators will eat the greater part of the waste stream, whether or not parts of it would be better diverted for reuse or recycling in other areas. What comes out of an incinerator has to be used in some way. A zero waste target is unrealistic given our current level of knowledge. The amendment speaks of a target of 50% with further progressive reductions, a realistic option which is in line with best practice elsewhere in Europe. I urge the Assembly to accept it.

Mrs Joan Carson: I shall oppose the motion and the amendment. I am not against the goal of waste reduction with a sustainable development focus. Nor am I against North/South co-operation on the issue of waste reduction, which is encouraged by EC directives. East/West co-operation within the United Kingdom is also needed to ensure that we achieve parity with UK legislation.
The motion calling on the Minister of the Environment to agree a waste-management strategy to achieve a zero level of waste within a generation sets a target which is unachievable under present conditions, unless we re-educate society. The amendment merely compounds the problem without seriously addressing the question of re-education of the public.
The aspiration of zero waste is admirable, but if zero waste management is pursued as suggested in the motion, the process will contradict the four main principles in ‘A Better Quality of Life: A Strategy for Waste Management in the United Kingdom’, published in May 1999 by the United Kingdom Government. The four principles are: all-encompassing social needs; effective protection of the environment; prudent use of natural resources; and the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.
The cost of implementing zero waste management would be monumental and would not allow for sustainable development. Waste reduction involves not only the destruction of rubbish, but also transport, sustainable development, industry, agriculture, energy and so on. We, the publicly elected representatives are very concerned that something be done to tackle the growing problem of waste.
The present waste-management strategy for Northern Ireland is based on three sound principles — reduce, reuse and recycle. We should reduce our output of rubbish and think carefully about what we use. We should reuse what we can, for example, refilling bottles instead of throwing them away. We should recycle as much as possible, using the "banks" available for bottles, clothes and paper. Recovery is also an issue — gaining something of value by composting organic materials, and the recovery of energy by incineration or biogas plants. We can easily dispose of clinker and ash from incinerators by using them for roads and road building. All such actions are commendable, but the key lies with the first objective — to reduce the production of waste.
We live in a throwaway society where shiny new plastic objects are the norm and everything old is thrown in the bin or dumped outside, usually in a ditch or bog — a nice wet place thought to have no environmental value. Northern Ireland needs a re-education policy. There must be an immediate culture change to encourage people to use items that are meant to last and items that can be repaired and valued.
Expensive household appliances such as washing machines are now only required to last a few years. When a machine is two or three years old, a maintenance engineer will say that it is not worth fixing, it would be cheaper to buy a new one. I look forward to the return of the cobbler’s shop, to the kiosk where a lady would darn socks and mend ladders, to woven shopping baskets and to glass milk bottles. I am sure Assembly Members can think of other such examples.
At the Rio summit in 1992 it was put forward in Agenda 21 that environmentally sound waste management must go beyond this mere safe disposal or recovery of wastes that are generated and seek to redress the root cause of the problem by attempting to change unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. That was eight years ago, and nothing has changed.
In one way this motion is most worthwhile, at this time, especially when the IRA seems to be having a problem in zero waste management with regard to the disposing of its weapons. May I suggest that the two Gentlemen who put forward this motion help their associates commence their own zero waste strategy so that they may lead by example. An excellent way would be to recycle their armaments for peaceful ends. In the words of the Bible, they should
" beat their swords into plowshares".
I cannot support this unrealistic motion or the amendment.

Mr Edwin Poots: I am mystified by this motion’s being put down in the first place. We have in this Assembly a structure of Departments and Committees. The Environment Committee deals with this, and both proposers of the motion sit on that Committee. That Committee looked at and gave its unanimous support to a waste management strategy proposed by the Department. That policy was proposed on 20 March 2000 and work has now started on its implementation.
The targets set by the Alliance Party in its amendment would largely be met by the proposals in the waste management strategy. Under the strategy, which we are already implementing, it is hoped to recover 40% of household waste by 2010 and 25% by 2005. It is also hoped to reduce the industrial and commercial waste landfill to 85% of 1998 levels by 2005, 75% of 1995 baseline levels for biodegradable municipal waste by 2010, 50% by 2013, and 35% by 2000. The proposals in the motion and the amendment are already in place. We have already supported the recycling of materials legislation, which enforces business to become responsible for the waste it produces and forces it to recycle 50% of its own waste.
The Environment Committee has been working with the Department on this issue to ensure that waste is reduced. This is not something that has just come out, something that the Department has not been working on. And whether it wanted to work on it or not is irrelevant. EU directives have enforced the Department to react, and it has started work on that with the support of the Committee and, subsequently, the support of this Assembly.
There are a number of key principles set out in the waste management strategy. The first is the waste management hierarchy, which indicates the relevant priority of different methods of managing waste. The hierarchy adopted for this strategy is reduction, re-use, recycling, energy recovery and disposal. The strategy then looks at finding the best practicable environmental option, by a systematic and balanced assessment of a range of different development options. It looks at the best available technology, not entailing excessive costs. That is the method used to select a technology that is best at preventing pollution and is reasonable to implement in financial terms. We have the "polluter pays" principle. Waste generators should pay the full costs of providing services to manage waste. We have the proximity principle, which is the need to treat or dispose of waste in reasonable proximity to the point of generation. Finally, we have self-sufficiency, and perhaps this impinges on both the motion and the amendment as it requires EC members to be self-sufficient in waste management practices.
All that is already in place and is up and running. I commend the Department on the work that it has done so far. The presentations made by SteveAston and JimLamont from the Department on these issues were the best made to the Committee. They knew what they were doing and what the EU directives demanded of them, and they set themselves practical, deliverable targets. In dissociating our party from the motion and the amendment, I stress that the Department has its finger on the pulse of the issue and will have the support of our party and our Committee for as long as it is implemented and managed sensibly.

Mr Arthur Doherty: Just over a week ago the SDLP issued a call for a real debate on the important issue of waste management. That did not receive wide coverage; waste is not the hottest issue for the media or for the public. It has failed to register with them that we are living through a quiet, insidious ecological meltdown, the effects of which are seen most starkly in the far-off famines and other tragedies in what we call the Third World. In fact, there is only one world; we are part of it, and we are responsible for it.
I was pleased that the motion appeared on the Order Paper so quickly. Perhaps it was a happy coincidence. I read the motion with great interest and high expectations. In it, the Minister is called upon to
"agree a waste management strategy which would progressively work towards zero waste targets".
That is excellent, if rather vague and theoretical. Nobody could disagree that such a strategy, if successful, would do wonders for the future economic, environmental and social well-being of our society. So far, so good.
The motion also says that such targets are
"to be achieved within a generation, that is by the year 2025".
We would all love to see that achieved in 25years, or even in 50or 100 years. For thousands of years, mankind has had a culture of waste and destruction. We make, we package, we use a little and discard a lot. We cut and slash and dig. We create deserts, dust bowls and wastelands. We poison the air and pollute our waterways and seas. That is just what we do to our planet; what we do to each other does not bear repetition. When did it first dawn on a few enlightened people that we live in a finite world with limited resources? It was not long ago — a century or so, perhaps. Can all that destruction be undone in a generation? I wish that it could.
I do not want anyone to think that we do not take the issue seriously. It is a deadly serious matter, and nobody is more conscious of that than the SDLP. We have been castigated for being green — on this issue, we are greener than green. We are involved with councils and council groups in work to develop a realistic waste management strategy, not only for Northern Ireland but for the entire island. We are involved in joint North/South action and, beyond these islands, international co-operation.
We heartily endorse the principles of minimisation, re-use and recycling. We urge a massive change in public appreciation of the role that individuals play in creating waste and can play in co-operating to solve waste management problems. That will entail a heavy commitment at all levels of Government: local, national and international. The implementation of waste management strategies will be a complicated and expensive process. Ratepayers and taxpayers will receive a serious shock. They must be persuaded that the benefits far outweigh the costs — costs that can be reduced if they are prepared to co-operate fully.
Before we can even begin to assess whether zero waste is an achievable end for such a process or just a noble aspiration, there is a mountain of work to be done. Every option at every stage must be analysed, costed and tested against the highest environmental standards. Currently, councils are heavily engaged in this work, with limited central government assistance. Neither their hands nor those of the Department should be tied at this stage by the adoption of any strategy, unless there is evidence that it has been fully tested and proved to be both superior and achievable. We do not have that evidence.
With regard to the Alliance party’s amendment, we accept the need to set achievable targets. However, it is not right to pre-empt the councils at this stage. We should await their deliberations, rather than make policy on the hoof, as we are in danger of doing here. We ask Sinn Féin to take this motion back, take a close look at it, and put some meat on the bones of a rather spare skeleton. If they do so, we will be delighted to give their detailed proposals the fullest consideration.

Ms Jane Morrice: Zero waste is an admirable goal. I congratulate Mr Murphy for bringing this motion to the Floor of the Assembly and encouraging debate on what is, without doubt, an important subject. I also thank Mr Poots for providing information on where we stand today and the Committee’s work in this area.
However much we strive to achieve zero waste, there will always be a certain amount of residual waste in society. Therefore any waste management strategy must place greater emphasis on waste minimisation. We agree that there must be a fundamental shift in thinking away from the management of waste to the prevention of waste. As Joan Carson said, the guiding principle should be to reduce, reuse, recycle and recover, with the disposal of waste as a last resort only.
It is also necessary to re-examine the ways in which waste is disposed of. We are all aware of the problems of landfill, which have been reiterated in the Assembly today. We need to encourage a move towards a reduction of waste processes in industry, business and the commercial sector. Businesses should be encouraged to rethink their design processes and recognise that producers have a responsibility too.
Partnerships were discussed today. Partnerships among the stakeholders in waste management are vitally important. We need to look at all the different levels. At the regional level, co-operation within Northern Ireland is a must. We welcome the coming together of local authorities on this issue. Co-operation on the island of Ireland is essential because of the potential for joint ventures, for example, in reprocessing procedures. We welcome partnerships at the cross-border level too — for example, the previously mentioned Donegal/Derry/Strabane partnership. Co-operation is also required on an East/West basis within these islands, in the European Union and on a global scale.
However, all this must be underpinned by investment at the first level to provide for what the householder can do. It is essential that people know what they can do on an individual basis, such as home composting and box schemes for the collection of paper and plastic. A healthy example of this is a pilot programme proposed by Bryson House, which some Members may not be aware of. It is a door-to-door, multi-recycling programme in partnership with three local authorities. Here we have an excellent example of something that is going to be up and running.
Finance should be provided for this, and at least a percentage should come from central sources for these projects and for ongoing research into new techniques in waste management. Funding should also be considered for existing non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and we must not forget the very valuable work that they do collaborating with community groups, local councils, local businesses and schools to promote waste management at grass-roots level. The work of conservation volunteers in this area is one example.
There is also a need to identify and invest in sustainable markets for recyclable products, and there is tremendous scope for innovation in terms of design, and so on, and in how we reuse our products. This can help to phase out, for example, peat-based compost by using waste-derived compost. Glass reprocessing is also important, as is the use of processed waste paper. An alternative application for reclaimed tyres is another example. This helps job creation and contributes to economic growth.
We should not forget the value of education, not only for the public but also for industry and business. The Minister should ensure that his Department establishes close working relationships with the Department of Education in this area so that the authorities responsible for the curriculum develop it with waste management issues included at all key stages.
The "polluter pays" principle, which has been mentioned, should be applied to waste management in Northern Ireland. Fees and charges should be set at appropriate levels in order to cover fully the cost of waste management and enforcement. The landfill tax credit scheme should be revised to focus on supporting the implementation of a waste management strategy. The use of secondary raw materials should be encouraged, possibly by levying additional taxes on primary sources.
Above all, central and local government must demonstrate leadership in sustainable waste management by immediately adopting green housekeeping and purchasing policies. To this end, we call for an audit of Stormont and all Government buildings regarding basic housekeeping practices in areas such as the use of recycled paper, energy-efficient lighting, heating, waste disposal and paper.
Waste management is not just about providing separate bins for household waste or about handling industrial waste. It is about changing attitudes, attracting new investment, creating jobs, and, most importantly, it is about protecting our health and environment.

Mr Jim Wells: I find it somewhat ironic that this motion should have been proposed by these two Members. Did they not think about the amount of waste that has been consigned to landfill as a result of their bombing activities the length and breadth of this Province? When they were blowing up Claudy, Enniskillen or La Mon did they stop and think about all the rubble, glass, and wood that would end up in landfill? If they had not created vast tonnage of waste by their own activities they might have a right to speak on this issue this evening. Of course, who could forget the ultimate waste — the waste of 3,000 totally innocent lives?
I noticed, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you were about to call me to order. I am totally in favour of waste management but not as advocated in this motion.
If we were to go on in the way we are going as a society, if everyone in the world were to use the world’s resources at the rate that we in Western society are doing, by the end of this century we would need three planets to sustain us. The only thing that is saving the situation at the moment is that Third-World countries are using a fraction of the resources that we, as Western society, are using.
One quarter of the world’s energy is used by one country — the United States. The average person in the EEC and in the United States uses between 60 and 70 times the amount of energy and resources that someone in central Africa or South America uses. We must grasp this problem, but in an achievable way. What is proposed in this motion is not achievable. Everyone would like zero waste but that will not happen by 2025, or even by 2125.
For once I shall not criticise the Department of the Environment because it has grasped the issue and developed a waste management strategy. More consultation has taken place as part of this strategy than for any other. I have been invited to countless meetings about this strategy, and no Member can claim that he does not know about it or has not been consulted.
I am not a district councillor, but I understand that district councils were also consulted widely on this vital issue. As the waste disposal authorities, they had to be consulted. Members of the party proposing this motion sat in district councils along the length and breadth of the country, from Londonderry to Newry, and from Fermanagh to Moyle. They listened to presentations on the strategy and gave it their seal of approval. The proposal then went before a series of public meetings at which we, as public representatives, were entitled to express our views. I went to at least two meetings and heard nothing from those representing Sinn Féin/IRA at local government level. Its members sat placidly and accepted what was being suggested.
The proposal then went before the Environment Committee, which questioned Dr Aston and his colleagues closely. I am not on the Environment Committee, but I wish I were because I would like to have had the opportunity to question him too. After that vigorous questioning the Committee gave the proposal its firm seal of approval.
This document has been well and truly aired. One reason it has generally been accepted is that the targets in it are attainable. I wish that the targets were more stringent and that we could have greater waste reduction, but at the moment that cannot be done.
In a previous incarnation I did a study on waste disposal for a conservation organisation. One of the tremendous barriers to adequate waste management in Northern Ireland is the fact that we have 26 waste disposal authorities in the form of 26 district councils. Each authority tries, if at all possible, to run its own waste disposal site. The problem is that the huge capital resources required for waste management are spread among 26 authorities which, apart from Belfast, are relatively small. In Leicester, which has a population equivalent to that of Northern Ireland, all waste is disposed of at two sites. Northern Ireland has about 40 publicly managed and private landfill sites. The Department faces enormous problems and must therefore set targets which are realistic.
We must give the Department the resources, encouragement and political support that it needs to ensure that it not only meets but tries to exceed those targets.
However, the Assembly must put its own house in order. Its use of resources is absolutely disgraceful. How many forests have been chopped down to provide paper for this institution? Where is the so-called paperless office that we were promised? Day after day the postman groans under the weight of paper from the Assembly. Does all our paper come from recycled sources? Is the paper that is thrown into the bins in our offices and outside our buildings recycled? I have been asking those questions, and no one can give me the answers.
On many counts, people could rightly say that we are setting a target for them but that the Assembly needs to put its own house in order. I support what the honLady for North Down (MsMorrice) said about the creation of an environmental audit committee. The Assembly needs a committee to consider what it is doing with its own waste and to make recommendations to the Executive about cutting down the vast amount of waste that is so evident in all Government Departments in the Province.
A practical measure that we could take from next week is recommend that the Assembly sign up for the eco tariff for electricity. All the electricity that is used in Government offices in Northern Ireland would then be purchased from an energy pool that comes from sustainable sources, such as wind and wave power.
That would send out the most enormous signal to the community that the Assembly means business as far as the future of our Province is concerned. The world simply cannot sustain the way in which we are currently going. The people are looking to us for an example. We should give the Department the political support and resources it needs to implement the plan. That is the way forward.
If, by doing that, we feel we can increase the targets, increase the amount of recycling and control over the use of energy and waste, all well and good. However, it would be nonsensical if the Department, having gone through that lengthy process — which unfortunately generated a lot of waste paper in its own right — said "Everyone has agreed that policy and we are happy with the targets, but we are scrapping all that. We are going for a zero waste strategy by 2025." That is not practical.
The Alliance Party — in particular, MrFord, who is normally a sensible individual — is not prone to the "Dallat factor". Most of his motions are thought through, but there is a wee bit of the "Dallat factor" in this one. MrFord knows that this issue is too important to be clouded by political dogma, and NorthernIreland is a big enough unit to deal with the waste strategy by itself. We produce so much waste that the economies of scale are such that we can tackle this problem as a Province. We do not need to run to Dublin to establish cross-border bodies — there is plenty of waste to be going on with in the Province.

Mr David Ford: I am not sure whether the Member was present for my speech, but I said that the motion refers to joint actions. I referred specifically to cross-border initiatives in the north-west and said that I was not discussing an all-Ireland issue.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I must remind Members of the time. Many Members wish to speak. I would like to see this as a family-friendly as well as an environmentally friendly Assembly.

Mr Jim Wells: The Member knows our deep suspicion of proposals for any form of cross-border bodies — we know the hidden intent behind them. The concern is not about waste, but the gradual absorption of the two parts of Ireland. Needless to say, we are not interested in going down that route. We can solve this problem ourselves. We should give the Department the support it deserves.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I wish to question the sense in tabling a motion that, for the most part, is unrealistic. Unfortunately, the motion is framed in absolutist, all-or-nothing terms. The proposer should know that those who demand all often end up with nothing. I strongly support the concept of a waste management strategy that will achieve the highest possible waste recycling targets. No society in the world recycles 100% of its waste, including countries such as Germany and Switzerland, which have been far more environmentally proactive and aware than us for decades.
The Department of the Environment published a waste management strategy for NorthernIreland based on wide consultation with a large number of environmentally-interested groups. It was able to obtain a large degree of consensus in formulating the strategy. More importantly, it is now up to the 26district councils to co-operate, working at the sharp end of waste management, in producing and implementing a strategy on the ground, based on the strategy document.
No one has questioned the general thrust of the strategy, although there is room for debate over the target being set. I believe the target is too low. The motion does not make it clear what zero waste means. Does it mean that by 2025 our society will produce no waste?
It may be a pious aspiration, but it is unrealistic. The danger of adopting such an unrealistic target is that it may be counter-productive and undermine the development of programmes to deal with the grubby reality of the waste problem.
In Northern Ireland there is a 3% increase in the production of waste each year, and we recycle less than 2%. There is evidence that there is a linkage between economic growth and increased production of waste. We need to develop the creativity and ingenuity to break that linkage. We are a throw-away society, and a massive education programme and culture change are needed to persuade the population to face up to the implications of what they are putting in their bins every week. People need to start taking responsibility for the environment.
We need incentives to encourage recycling, and deterrents to make the polluter pay. But in the meantime what are we doing with all this rubbish, bearing in mind the EU regulations on landfill? We are still putting batteries, fluorescent tubes, paints, adhesives, medicines, weedkiller, insecticides, polish, detergents and oil into our landfill sites. We have a long way to go. What are we doing with our waste in this Building? That question was asked earlier, and we need to tackle that issue and lead by example.
We need to set serious, challenging, realistic, but achievable, targets, and make sure that they are pursued vigorously. At present there are very low levels of recycling of household waste. We need to develop programmes for the more sustainable management of that waste. There is currently a very low demand for recycled material. Developing new, economically viable and stable markets for recycled material is a massive task.

Mr Jim Wells: Does the Member agree that if we, as an Assembly, along with the 10 Government Departments, decided, from a certain date, that we would only use recycled materials, it would give an enormous boost to the recycled material market in Northern Ireland?

Ms Carmel Hanna: I will consider that, but in the meantime I will finish my points. We will need help from many bodies, operating at a more global level, if we are to develop sustainable markets. We must foster a society preference for recycled goods and a culture of repair, rather than replacement. The SDLP is, of course, committed, through the Annex to Strand Two of the Good Friday Agreement, to North/South co-operation on environmental protection, pollution, water quality and waste management. I acknowledge that polluters do not recognise borders or separate jurisdictions. The SDLP is in favour of establishing an all-Ireland environmental protection agency and all-Ireland markets for recyclable materials to cover what is, after all, a small island of 32,000 square miles and five million people.
We need to take the issue of waste management very seriously, but realistically. We are always aspiring to achieving higher targets of reducing, reusing, recycling and recovering.

Mr Derek Hussey: I support the thrust of the amendment as it represents a much more realistic approach to the growing problem of waste management than the original motion, which I regard, and I gather others regard, as an unobtainable, idealistic expression. The zero waste idea may come more from a possible electoral threat in the Republic. I understand that a zero waste group may be fielding candidates there, and perhaps the proposers of the motion are more concerned about that.
However, I feel that Mr Ford, in his amendment, might have been better looking at EU targets for waste production and, indeed, the proposals coming from the Environment Committee, as outlined so well by MrPoots. Mr Wells has referred to the number of authorities with responsibility. Again, through the discussions this afternoon, Members will be aware of the establishment of a number of council consortia to address the waste management strategy requirements. I heartily welcome such co-operation.
My own council is one of the constituent bodies in the north-west region cross-border group of councils, which includes Donegal, as has been mentioned. I welcome the proposal’s recognition that waste management may need to be addressed, where appropriate, on a cross-border basis.
There is a recognition that a proper strategy to deal with waste requires a critical mass to ensure economically effective outcomes. I trust that all Members can agree that the aim of any option on waste management under consideration is to target the least environmental impact within the bounds of economic viability. I sincerely believe that a balanced option of prevention, reduction, re-use, recovery and disposal is appropriate and can deliver targets while focusing resources to minimise costs.
The motion partly addresses tools that can be used in the recovery process — namely, recycling and composting. There will still be a residual, unusable waste, and I believe that the proper recovery tool here is energy from waste, thus utilising residual waste and further reducing that which will have to go to landfill. Despite the prior extraction of many materials, new processes and energy-to-waste ensure clean burn of residual unusable waste, notwithstanding its reduced calorific value. One has only to look at Denmark, where, I understand, there are about 30 energy-to-waste plants there.
There are many issues for consideration such as waste generation and reduction at source. MrMurphy suggested that manufacturers should take a lead role on that and I totally agree with him. MrFord dealt with separation at source, and again I agree with him. Education was mentioned by MsHanna and MrsCarson, and nobody can disagree with the fact that people need to be educated. Markets for recovered materials and research and development were mentioned, and the suggestion was that there needs to be some sort of Government intervention in these areas. Perhaps this Assembly should suggest — and I totally agree — that we should be using recycled materials. Members will note that I am using a recycled notepad.

Mr Jim Wells: Hear, hear.

Mr Derek Hussey: Thank you. Unfortunately, time prevents me from going into that, as I realise that there are others yet to speak.
Whatever way we go forward, investment will be required, and I contend that it will be necessary for additional funding from the Government to ensure an effective and acceptable solution to the problem of waste management in the future. Was landfill tax an environmental tax or a revenue-raising tax? If additional funding to ensure efficient and effective waste management strategies cannot be made available via a greater level of support from landfill tax credits, we will then know the answer as to whether this Government at Westminster was a green or a money-grabbing one.

Mr John Dallat: At this late stage in the proceedings I could be accused of recycling many of the ideas that have already been mentioned. I was particularly interested in MrWells’s contribution and his frustration at the volume of paper he receives. I suggest that that may have something to do with the success of the Assembly.
Developing a waste strategy is not a problem. The problem lies in persuading the public to pay for its delivery and achieving the targets set in it. To do that, there would have to be significant changes in public attitudes. People would have to pay significantly more in taxes, so there could be greater financial input and fundamental revisions of the existing planning regime. Without these elementary principles, the aims and aspirations for a national waste strategy will never be realised.
In Britain and Ireland there is significantly less investment in waste management than in other European countries. To date the producers of waste are but bystanders, not directly responsible for the serious amount of waste they generate.
In Northern Ireland the arrangements for waste disposal are hopelessly inadequate, even piecemeal. The problem can only get worse for local authorities that provide disposal facilities as opposition to waste disposal sites intensifies. We may not have even started to win the hearts and minds of the public, to change its attitudes to waste minimisation and waste recycling. This is elementary and should begin at school, be brought home to the family and carried on to the work place. The Government’s national waste strategy focuses on household waste, which accounts for only 5% of waste production. It is unclear whether the targets for commercial and industrial waste are purely aspirational, or even legally binding. Many other key areas are addressed inadequately, if at all.
As members of the public, we may ask "What can we do?" And the answer is one word — "Plenty." Every year over 400 million metric tonnes of waste is generated in the UK, and it is estimated that an average household produces over a tonne of waste per year. If every family were to start a compost heap at the bottom of its garden and give its backing to recycling, we would have begun to create the ethos for a much cleaner environment.
The Government have set a target for 17% of household waste to be recycled or composted by 2004. Is this achievable and who will verify it? Municipal waste is increasing at the rate of 3% per annum. Over 60% of our personal consumption is on food and alcohol. Satisfying this demand leads not only to materials being prepared, packaged and transported, sometimes for thousands of miles, but also to the increasing use of take-aways, which has resulted in packaging being disposed of on the streets. If everyone works together, we can tackle this throwaway society. How will we achieve it? The Government have made available £25 million over three years towards the Waste and Resource Action Programme (WRAP). However, this money will be wasted if there are no long-term sustainable markets and end uses for recycled material. Even if all funding for waste management is added up, we will find that we will still spend no more than £1 per person per year over the next three years, which is not a lot.
This is a national issue that has to be addressed by everyone. For us, the issue is an all-Ireland one. Pollution in all its evil forms does not stop at the border, and there are many benefits should we adopt an overall strategy for the whole island.
Peering into the future is easy. In the nineteenth century we had the Industrial Revolution. The twentieth century brought a revolution in information technology. However, we are not sure what the twenty-first century will be remembered for. Waste and how we manage it is a serious challenge. At least we now have strategies and are attempts are being made to impose targets, but we still need to talk seriously about waste prevention and avoidance. Waste has been the Cinderella of the utility services for too long. We have seen fundamental changes in the way we deal with waste over the last 100 years, not least with the new technologies and the changes that are generally perceived to be best practice. Throughout the twentieth century there was a need to safeguard the environment and develop public confidence.
I support the spirit of the motion, but I doubt if its aspirations will be achievable. Much depends on the resources available and whether people are prepared to bear the increased costs. Much depends on how we educate society about waste disposal. Most importantly, we must develop a collective responsibility on this crucial issue. The motion has allowed the different parties to lay their ideas before the House. The next logical step is to have all the issues raised thoroughly examined and taken on board so that and our vision for a waste-management strategy can be achieved.

Mr Sam Foster: There is no doubt that this has been a most interesting debate. I thank those who participated and those who have acknowledged our presentation on the waste management strategy. I am sure that this afternoon’s discussion will not go to waste.
It is important to look after the environment. If the sun, moon and stars were in the predatory hands of the human race, they would probably not exist. Let us proceed with care. Let us not raise unrealistic expectations.
I was glad to be able to listen to the debate on one of the most significant challenges facing society, business, the Assembly, my Department and district councils. The challenge has major environmental, economic and social implications. Should our strategy for facing this challenge be based on a laudable but aspirational approach to increasing the amount of waste that is recycled and composted? Alternatively, should we place our hopes on the pragmatic, consensus-based waste management strategy published by my Department, with my endorsement and that of the Assembly’s Environment Committee? Waste is an everyday fact, which will have unpleasant, long-term consequences if we fail to find realistic and sustainable solutions to it. We need to produce much less of it and manage much better that which we do produce.
We want less waste because the energy used to extract, transport and turn raw materials into products has a high cost. The money, production time and often scarce raw materials needed are precious commodities which no individual or organisation should squander.
A primary goal of sustainable development is, therefore, to minimise waste. That is why reducing waste is at the top of the list of options set out in the Northern Ireland waste management strategy. We should not lose sight of the aspiration to maximise recycling and composting activities. At the same time, it must be unrealistic to expect a transition from recycling less than 5% of household waste to 50% of all waste without identifying the practical and progressive steps that will lead us there. All our experience and consultation leads us to that conclusion. We must continue to aim for what is achievable. To reach that goal we must have a strategic approach which will ensure that all stakeholders, businesses, communities and individuals can share the responsibility for making the strategy work. It must be based on a high level of consensus and participation across the whole of society.
This was a fundamental principle that dictated the way the current Northern Ireland waste management strategy was developed. I will illustrate this by a short description of the process. The strategy was developed over three years through a programme of extensive consultation involving three distinct steps. That was referred to this afternoon — maybe this is a recycling process. The first step was the formation of a steering group to agree the scope of the strategy and an approach which would engage all stakeholders. The group comprised the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, the Confederation of British Industry and the Northern Ireland Environmental Link, represented by Friends of the Earth. An awareness campaign using television, radio and the press was followed by a series of open workshops. Everyone who might be affected, or who expressed an interest, was invited to discuss their ideas and to suggest how to overcome obstacles that might challenge the opportunity to make a real difference in how we tackle this vital issue. Participants from across Northern Ireland society ranged from community to corporate groups and from councils to college pupils. Their suggestions laid the foundations for change.
The second step was an intensive series of face-to-face meetings with industry sectors, together with officers and elected members from each of the 26 district councils. Their ideas were then built into draft policy proposals for change, and these were issued for public consultation.
The third step was to establish an independent advisory group comprising representatives from the private and public sectors, non-governmental organisations and the environmental professions. Their review of the stakeholder consultation led to 104 recommendations for further enhancement of the proposals. Of these, 98 were incorporated into the final strategy. The final policy proposals fully reflected the objectives and principles of sustainable development. They were also fully consistent with Northern Ireland’s obligations under the relevant EC directives and international conventions, and were and are coherent with parallel initiatives in the rest of the UK and in the Republic of Ireland.
The proposed strategy was examined and endorsed by the Environment Committee. The final, agreed waste management strategy was launched in March this year. The inclusive and extensive nature of the consultation that marked this development has led to wide support for the strategy across all major stakeholders. That launch marked not the completion of the process but its continuation. The strategy has in-built review arrangements that take effect after the first three years. That will enable all of us to assess the impact of the measures in the strategy and to refine the policies if there are any performance shortfalls. We will also have the benefit of the views of an independent advisory board, which will monitor and report on progress.
Northern Ireland is required to have a waste management strategy in order to satisfy the requirements of the European Waste Framework Directive. Not only does this current strategy meet these mandatory obligations, but it has also been designed to achieve other goals: to protect public health and the environment; to provide a secure platform for business growth; and to build public confidence.
The key aim of the strategy is to achieve fully sustainable waste management. This means using material resources more efficiently to cut down on the amount of waste produced. Where waste is generated, it means dealing with it in a way that minimises impacts on the environment and contributes positively to economic development and social progress.
The strategy comprises a range of policy measures including leadership, planning, regulation, information and marketing. Good progress has been made in the first six months. My Department has introduced new controls and completed important data studies. District councils have done excellent work on the development of comprehensive waste management plans, which they are to submit to my Department early next year.
However, in the context of today’s motion I want to focus on the strategy’s key policy areas of waste reduction, recovery and recycling. The strategy attempts to change attitudes to waste by directing our attention to the full life cycle of materials and products. It helps us to stop consigning what are otherwise valuable materials to an expanding stream of waste. It allows us to concentrate on the strategy’s policies and programmes to encourage everyone to realise the true value of these materials as a secondary resource capable of exploitation, and not as waste or "a problem". That approach is exemplified in the strategy’s programme for market development and its proposals for best practice schemes.
In this way, and by setting out challenging and specific targets for different categories of materials — tyres, plastics, paper, glass — the waste management strategy sets us on the road to significantly increased recovery and recycling. Even more importantly, the strategy details positive, practical and realistic steps that could take us a significant way down that road, even if they do not lead to its achievement within the timescale envisaged by the proposers of this motion.
At its heart the strategy seeks to redefine how we view and handle waste and enable a progressive transition towards integrated resource management. It encourages waste reduction and improved product design. In the short and medium term this must be complemented by significant improvements in recycling and recovery. Therefore, an overall target to recover 25% of household waste by 2005 and 40% by 2010 underpins the strategy. These targets incorporate minimal thresholds for recycling and composting at 15% and 25% respectively.
Meeting these targets will bring significant environmental and economic benefits to Northern Ireland. To make sure that they are achieved, the strategy addresses the need to develop supporting infrastructure and markets for recycled materials.
However, to work successfully, the strategy will have to continue to involve everyone: from householders to company directors, from community groups to local and central Government. We must remember that the aims of sustainable waste management, and the obligations imposed by European waste directives, are common to all member states, including the Republic of Ireland. Moreover, one of the areas identified for enhanced co-operation under the North/South Ministerial Council is "the scope for improved waste management in a cross-border context". When I reported back to the Assembly after the first meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council is environment sector, several Members expressed an interest in this topic. Both the North and the South will be faced with similar problems under these European directives. We will both need to divert increasing quantities of waste away from landfill sites and towards more sustainable waste management practices.
The north-west region’s cross-border group has demonstrated the benefit to be gained from co-operation. This group comprises seven Northern Ireland councils and Donegal County Council. The group has reviewed what makes the best economic and environmental sense for the provision of waste services in its area. I am pleased that my Department has been able to provide financial assistance for this work.
Another good example of the cross-border dimension is NI2000, which gives advice to schools and voluntary groups on recycling. In conjunction with a group based in Dublin, it has produced an all-Ireland recycling directory, which will be launched in December. I hope to attend the event along with Noel Dempsey, my counterpart in the Republic.
As I said at the outset, waste is a matter of fact. It is not a matter of fiction, but an everyday truth that affects our daily lives at every level. We should continue to aspire to maximum use of that waste as a beneficial resource. However, more realistically, we need to acknowledge that, for the foreseeable future, there will continue to be a substantial level of waste to be dealt with. Our task and our responsibility is to ensure that this fraction gets smaller and smaller every year. The Northern Ireland waste management strategy establishes a framework within which we can achieve that goal and establish Northern Ireland as a centre of excellence in resource and waste management.
By encouraging changes to product designs and by developing a recovery, re-use and recycling infrastructure, we can and we will continually improve our ability to extract value from materials previously wasted. We can and will build markets on a Northern Ireland, an all-Ireland and a UK-wide basis. These are crucial factors for change, and the strategy makes clear provision for them.
We have adopted widely-supported new policies which will make a major contribution to safeguarding the environment and promoting resource efficiency; these will also lead to significant job opportunities. No standard for the protection of the environment or public health will be compromised through successful implemention of the strategy; neither will this opportunity to do the right thing for present and future generations be lost.
The Northern Ireland waste management strategy is built on realism, consensus and best practice. It would be foolhardy to replace it with unrealistic aspiration. We need to allow the strategy to unlock the full potential for the development and improvement of waste management in Northern Ireland. The strategy sets targets, not limits, and people are welcome to exceed the targets. Nobody is trying to stifle them. If councils and others find a way to exceed those targets, they will have my most enthusiastic support. The strategy is not static. It will be subject to regular review, when we will all have an opportunity to take stock of the strategy and if necessary, to discuss it. I ask Members to reflect carefully on this when they come to vote and to confirm their support for the existing waste management strategy.
Reference has been made to the importance of education in waste disposal methods. I am pleased to announce that my Department, together with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, is organising a three-day international conference and exhibition in the Waterfront Hall next February. It will be directed at international designs for products made from recycled materials. For one day of the conference, entry will be exclusively for schools.

Mr David Ford: I will attempt to obey your injunction, Sir, and stick to a family-friendly short speech. There are three main areas. Some Members raised issues of housekeeping, particularly about the Assembly, but also about wider government functions. It may not be entirely appropriate to this motion, but I will ensure the Commission takes note. There were also some useful comments by Ms Morrice and Mr Wells.
The cross-border issue was raised. Mr Poots and Mr Wells knee-jerked too quickly, and they should have taken the time to read what was said, and listen to Derek Hussey about the practical benefits of the cross-border co-operation in which Strabane is involved. Hopefully we can get away from knee-jerking too much every time these issues are raised. They should note that there has been an all-Ireland strategy for clinical waste, which has not created too many problems for my Unionist Colleagues in Antrim who are involved in it. So, there may be hope yet.
The issue is about where the Assembly takes its opinion on existing strategy, and how we move on from that. Mr Poots attacked me on behalf of the Minister, although the Minister did not feel the need to do likewise, so I am grateful for that. My opening remarks supported the efforts of the Minister and his officials, notably Steve Aston, and I broadly support the strategy.
The Environment Committee approved the strategy in draft form, but it did so in a hurry immediately before suspension. That broad approval should not prevent those who sat on the Committee from making further suggestions that may be helpful, whether or not they are entirely in accord with the printing of that strategy.

Mr Jim Wells: The fact is that the hon Member’s councillors, throughout Northern Ireland, sat at consultation meetings — I was at several of them — and agreed the broad strategy of the Department’s proposals. It is a bit rich to try and amend it at this late stage.

Mr David Ford: Can I assume that the Member would be prepared to stand by every word spoken by every DUP councillor on other matters?
Comments around the Chamber suggested that the motion was unrealistic. My party was the only one to produce an amendment to make it — as others have termed it — "slightly more realistic", and that should not be a basis for criticising us. Others could have put down amendments but did not do so.
The amendment is not entirely in line with current strategy but is a nudge towards improvement. It is based on further information we received about what is being achieved in councils in England and Wales and we believe it is an entirely appropriate slight change to what was being said. We are not trying to stand the strategy on its head but are seeking to encourage the Department ever further in the appropriate direction. That is an entirely reasonably way to put an amendment to the House, and I commend the amendment that is being proposed.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. It was a very interesting debate. I particularly thank the Minister and his officials for their courtesy and in demonstrating their interest and commitment by being present throughout the debate. My party recognises and acknowledges that.
The Members and the Minister have reiterated their concerns about the environment, and that reflects a broad consensus within our society. All have argued, with different emphasis, for reduction, recycling and recovery. Some have addressed the issue of the disappointing targets we have set ourselves. On a number of occasions, reference was made to the extensive consultation that has taken place. It is my view that there is, as a result of that consultation, a heightened awareness — the education process that was referred to — and also an expectation that we will do more. Given the reality of the impact on our environment we must do more.
This motion does not contradict or overturn the waste management strategy. It adds value to it, and there is no conflict in that. Guiding principles provide a measuring tool to ensure that these initial and modest targets in the present strategy can be added to continually.
I am encouraged by two points in the Minister’s comprehensive response. The first is the announcement of the joint action by two Departments — an issue of particular interest to me. It is very significant that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Department of the Environment should co-host a conference on these issues. Secondly, there is confirmation that the strategy is not static and that we will continue to develop it. The Minister made reference to the document on waste management strategy and he quoted from it a section which deals with the strategy’s key aim of achieving fully sustainable waste management.
The same section of the document outlines the Department’s role, which has guided our approach to the issue:
"The Department of the Environment will take the lead in implementing the strategy in conjunction with all major stakeholder groups. The challenge is to unlock the full potential of development and improvement of the waste management sector in Northern Ireland. This will make a major contribution to safeguarding the environment and promoting resource efficiency and economic growth."
This is an extract from the formal document. This is Environment Week and, therefore, a particularly good time to hold this debate. The motion reflects current and emerging legislation from Westminister, Leinster House and the European Parliament, while addressing the aspirations of the waste management strategy document. In relation to the amendment, because such modest targets have been set, as reflected in the broad remit of the motion, it has proved procedurally impossible to incorporate the argument. We argue in terms of generation and approach this issue on the basis of what can be achieved over 25years. Members have indicated their concerns, and it is clear from their arguments that there has been a great deal of research and interest in this issue. This demonstrates what can be achieved. People were able to tell us what had been achieved in other areas, but I would have preferred it if they had explored what could be achieved in another 25 years.
Some municipal authorities have already achieved 50% reduction targets but where will they be in another 25years? Using this as our datum point, where will we be in 25years? The amendment does not address that, which is unfortunate given the unanimous concern for environmental issues which was expressed during this debate. It is a pity that people did not attempt to raise the threshold, our ambitions or our expectations, as this motion does. We could examine those waste reduction policies enforced by legislation, some of which is already emerging from the European Parliament, Westminster and LeinsterHouse. This would enable us to address the powerful economic and environmental imperatives which demand waste streaming at source. This would also address the employment potential of developing the market for secondary materials via manufacturing through recycling. We should consider the benefit of an initiative taken by the Minister on behalf of the Executive. This challenge requires leadership to develop a zero waste policy, supported by enabling legislation.
We could then challenge other Departments and set a positive example by calling, for instance, for a social economy and jobs audit as part of every sub-regional waste management plan. This would ensure that the mid-term and the long-term economic potential and financial savings which could be derived from a zero waste strategy were fully recognised and pursued. Other Departments, such as Enterprise, Trade and Investment, are researching secondary materials market development, including export potentials. They are promoting research and development to identify synergies between the information technology sector and material recovery initiatives, seed-funding pilot programmes and seed-funding material recovery incubators.
The Department of Education could integrate into the curriculum a programme of education for sustainable development in the context of active citizenship and lifelong learning.
The Department for Social Development could usefully research the links between sustainable development and social development, including the social spin-offs from community-based solutions to waste management.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development could lead efforts to maximise composting by providing the appropriate infrastructure for materials recovery in rural areas, thus ensuring that Ireland’s low dioxin content in farm animals remains a feature of our marketing strategies protecting the green profile that is available for the future marketing of organic produce as well.
The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure could stimulate the arts, culture and communications sectors to engage in the important task of popularising new attitudes to our environment in public places.
The Department of Finance and Personnel could implement a new incentive structure to support eco-modernisation and abolish perverse incentives for incineration.
Finally, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety could ensure that the best international research on the health implications of incineration and landfill are available to the decision-makers.
Clearly a policy-driven commitment from our Executive will address these and many other opportunities, to develop a zero waste programme. This motion provides an opportunity for the Assembly to take the first steps in achieving such a policy position. From the viewpoint of current waste management systems, the argument for incinerators is that the structure of the waste profession is unaltered, and innovation is limited to the provision of machinery. For large centralised institutions such as Governments, waste companies and machinery suppliers, these are often decisive considerations.
However, incinerators now evoke levels of opposition similar to those in respect of nuclear power, and the main reason is the health and environmental impacts of emissions. Because the input of municipal incinerators is mixed waste, it is difficult, if not impossible, to control the hazardous elements in it. It is generally accepted that the combustion process emits hazardous substances, such as dioxin, and as long as the materials being burnt are hazardous, or are made so by combustion, the plant itself will be a potential hazard through emissions into the atmosphere or the deposit of toxins in ash deposits.

Mr Derek Hussey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: No, I will not if the Member does not mind. We had a broad discussion, and I have to pick up on some of the arguments that were presented. Perhaps the Member will excuse me.
What we do with our waste and how we process it is an issue that is at the core of many other environmental problems. Furthermore, it falls within the remit of this Assembly and the Executive, so we can do something about it.
If we, as a society, really want to solve the waste management problem effectively and efficiently, and above all in an environmentally sensitive way, then that will involve a complete reassessment of how we, as a society, respond to these issues. It will mean looking at the commercial packaging of the products we buy and consume; it will mean lobbing the Westminster Parliament to ensure that we can have effective legislation so that these problems can be addressed at source; and it will mean tackling clearly, at a national level, the issue of the recycling of all waste.
When talking about critical mass it is economic nonsense to argue that we could sustain such a market, particularly in terms of the initial start-up cost within the context of the Six Counties. This is an island-wide problem, and we can develop island-wide solutions. It will mean opening our minds to other options that are currently not being discussed at a local government or central Government level. The reality is that 50% of landfill waste should not be there in the first place — and, by the way, that is a Department of the Environment statistic.
The first question that comes to mind is whether the waste is reusable or recyclable. On the island of Ireland less than 10% of the waste dumped in local authorities’ sites is being recycled. That is a statistic of failure and short-sightedness.
Many experts have contributed to the debate and have commented on it. Robin Murray has produced a very interesting book, published last year, called ‘Creating Wealth from Waste’, and he says
"all of this is now changing".
In his book he has highlighted three important factors that are turning waste and waste management into a dynamic, fast-changing, international economic sector. People might be interested to learn that waste management is already the second largest growth area in economic activity in the North.
There is growing concern about the hazards of waste disposal; there are broader environmental concerns, especially global warming and resource depletion. Economic opportunities are being created by new waste regulations and technological innovation. All that leads us to consideration of a programme for zero waste — here I address the detractors and the faint-hearted directly. California, the home of Silicon Valley, is now in the vanguard of environmental transformation. The Californian waste diversion law, the Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939), was passed in 1989, and within seven years nearly a quarter of all the municipalities in that region had reached the target of 50%. That is driven by a zero waste policy. Nova Scotia, a delegation from which is, as I speak, in this country visiting Galway, has a target to achieve it within the next five years. Holland has already reached 72% nationwide, a figure which continues to rise. This is the result of long-term planning and thinking and of achievable objectives.
Today’s motion invites us to develop zero waste targets to be achieved in a 25-year period. Coincidentally, 25 years is also the length of an incinerator contract. Both options invite us to think in generations. The difference between the two is that the zero waste approach seeks to reduce with the aim of eliminating while the other promotes a dying technology and assumes a continuing or rising level of waste.
It is sometimes argued, by people who really should know better, that the rigorous safety standards now set down for the operation of incinerators are a reliable guarantee that the health of local populations will not be compromised. However, a 1997 survey in Japan found that only eight of 1,500 operating incinerators met international dioxin emission standards. In Germany more than a million people signed petitions against incinerators after similar scandals and disclosures. In France a Government survey of incinerator emissions in 1998 led to the closure of 20 plants, while others were put on probation. High dioxin levels in milk produced near an incinerator further heightened concern. In Britain itself, two of the most modern incinerators reported 183 emissions infringements between the years 1995 and 1998.

Mr Derek Hussey: Where are they?

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: One is in London, the other in south-east England. I can ask my Colleague to provide the Member with the names if he needs them, for I have them here.
Four major advantages have been observed from the implementation of the zero waste approach in other countries. There is a lesson in them for the sceptics amongst us and for this Assembly. They are the environment, economic regeneration and employment, the quality of life itself, and the practicality of recycling. Waste minimisation measures, and in particular regulations which place responsibility for them on those who can design it away, reduce material use and ease its reuse.
In Germany the very stringent laws that country has introduced have reduced quantities of packaging materials by 13%. German industry is now engaged in close-loop design, which indicates further major material reductions. In Canada, the National Packaging Protocol achieved 50% recycling and reduction by 1996. Those materials reclaimed through recycling have been found by a series of significant international studies to offer major environmental savings by replacing virgin materials. In the United States the 1994 Tellus study carried out a life-cycle inventory of 13 packaging materials and concluded that the decisive environmental benefit of recycling stems from the avoidance of the environmental cost which would have resulted from the extraction and processing of the displaced virgin materials.
The organisational structure — and, indeed, the culture — required to develop intensive diversion is markedly different to that of the traditional disposal industry, whether the issue be landfill or incineration. That is why it has been difficult for many in the traditional waste industry and in local authorities to encourage or even to envisage any diversion other than the building of bottle bank collections with only modest projections of recovery levels. All of that clearly points to the need for a zero waste strategy.
I shall conclude with some interesting figures. Globally, 1998 was the warmest year measured in history. The top 10 warmest years measured worldwide over the last 120 years all occurred after 1981, with the six warmest of those occurring after 1990. That gives us all reason to be concerned. When one considers that major reinsurance companies have calculated that economic losses due to weather extremes have increased by a factor of eight since the 1960s, one can see the urgency of taking action. I urge the Assembly to set achievable but ambitious targets and to work within the framework of a zero waste policy towards ever escalating levels of achievement.
I ask Members to support the motion and reject the amendment. Go raibh míle maith agat.
Question 
Main question put and negatived.
Motion made
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker]

Future of the Mournes

Mr Eddie McGrady: This subject is very dear to my heart. It is not a parochial debate about the Mournes, but is about the greater issue of how we use the environment in Northern Ireland.
A recent article in ‘The Irish Times’ said
"So much of what tourists treasure is available in south Down and careful investment will be a boon…In the warmth and glory of summer, the surrounding landscape is breathtaking. Fields are edged with dry boulder walls and uneven with velvet pockets and rounded hummocks"
It is a beautiful, idyllic setting. The article describes the outstanding qualities of one of Northern Ireland’s greatest national assets — the Mournes — which requires proper management for use by future generations.
We must never forget that people with varying interests not only live in the Mourne region and its surrounding settlements but eke out, in many different ways, an existence from the land and sea. There has been some diversification, but that has not filled the gap. Such diversification was the basis of European funding and I am concerned about the continuity of that funding. We must find a way to bridge the gap between the completion of the last tranche, on 31 December 1999, and the commencement of the funding for the next six-year period, which will not be available until spring. I hope that the Government will act swiftly to bridge that gap.
We need a management plan for all who live and work in the Mournes and for those who visit as holidaymakers — there is no doubt about that. The plan needs to satisfy a range of interests: farmers, fishermen, small industrialists, commercial concerns, rural dwellers, tourists and day-trippers.
Who is responsible for the implementation of such a plan? Now that political authority has been devolved to the Executive, it is we. Acting in unison, we should ensure that a proper management plan for the Mournes is devised. The plan already exists; it was devised by the Mourne Heritage Trust.
It has been endorsed by three district councils — Down, Newry and Mourne and Banbridge — as well as the 60 community groups that make up an organisation known as the Regeneration of the Mournes Ltd. Surely this reflects an acceptable level of community involvement.
This management plan was devised under direct rule. The Ministers at that time took the easy option and side-stepped the issue on the basis that the enhanced management structures proposed would involve resourcing, so, theoretically, they left it for the devolved Assembly to deal with.
Previous political Administrations relied on the protected areas designation and other protective notifications. However, there has not been a single focus on how to develop what I have described as a national asset for Northern Ireland. The whole thing illustrates the cop-out that was taken by previous administrations.
The gains to be had from the implementation of a properly structured, properly resourced, co-ordinated and cohesive management plan would outweigh all the disadvantages. The only disadvantage that I can discover from all the correspondence and the meetings with various Departments is the question of cost. However, by adopting a more sensible approach to that plan, the costs involved would be returned manyfold.
The Mourne Heritage Trust reckons that for every £1 that is spent £4 has been returned in investment and better resources for the area, and economic regeneration involvement has increased. That is a 400% return on investment, and the potential is even greater; we should remember that. A PricewaterhouseCoopers report was published in respect of the Canadian national parks programmes, and it showed that for every dollar invested, $9 was generated for the local and regional economies. This seems to apply in many other areas also.
I am very pleased that the Mourne Heritage Trust has been able to devise and develop this plan. They recently made an excellent presentation to the Minister of the Environment, and I thank the Department for receiving the delegation so sympathetically. If there is a problem with money eventually, we will discuss this as well. I have received an assurance from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment that he would like to hear a similar presentation, and I hope that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will follow suit.
This exemplifies the cross-cutting interdepartmental nature of what should be our new programme, about which we heard so much in this morning’s debate. An interdepartmental approach to the future management of the Mournes is urgently required, and the impetus for this can be provided only by the new political institutions here — through the Executive, aided by the Assembly.
The central feature of such a management plan is the concept of a national park. In this instance the national park concept has been changed, ameliorated and devised to cater for the local situation. It is known throughout the isles as the Celtic Model Park. This has been devised for the Mourne area, and, if successful, it will be a model for many other areas in Ireland. The principle designation of national park status in Northern Ireland emerged in the original ad hoc management committee of the Mournes, known as the Mournes Advisory Council and was noted in the draft regional strategic framework document ‘Shaping our Future’.
This document provides a framework for both rural and urban planning requirements for the next 25 years. It is important to get in on this on the ground floor and get our act right. The Mourne Heritage Trust is satisfied that this Celtic model of national park status may be a solution for Northern Ireland, providing consensus for the future management and development of the Mourne area in a way which would add considerably to Northern Ireland’s overall environment and tourism products.
The main components of Celtic national park status are as follows. The existing Mourne Heritage Trust would continue to exercise its management function. The Department of the Environment would retain the planning powers — which make central government jittery sometimes — for the Mournes. As socio-economic and nature conservation programmes go hand in hand, these would be play an equal role, and in fact, that role is already devised. The three district councils would still be the access authorities.
When the park is fully operational, it will require core funding estimated at £1·2 million per annum. I understand that the core cost is presently £200,000, so we are talking about an estimated additional £1 million. It sounds like a great deal of money, but, as I mentioned earlier, the clawback for the regional and local economy may be four times, or — if the Canadian experience is repeated — nine times the sum invested. The three district councils and the Craigavon and Downpatrick planning divisions currently provide the local governance of the Mournes.
What exactly is the Mourne area? It is not just the Mourne Mountains. When you refer to the Mournes, people think of the mountains and the song about them sweeping down to the sea. I want to give you some physical statistics. The area consists of 29,000 hectares of farmland; 1,500 farms with a small average of 20 hectares; 20,000 hectares of moorlands and mountains; 5,000 hectares of woodlands and forests; 72 km of coastline; and a series of rivers, lakes and reservoirs. This is one of the greatest natural resources in the island of Ireland, North or South. We are not paying enough attention to its potential for development.
In addition to the natural physical features, there are 350 historic monuments; two sustained village conservation areas; 400 listed buildings; and 1,700 derelict vernacular buildings, which could be restored and used for economic purposes. Those are some of the characteristics that translate the picture-postcard image of the Mournes into a reality which is available for development.
Why should the Mournes be designated with national park status? It is happening elsewhere, and unless it is dealt with urgently, we will be left lagging behind. There are eight parks in England already, two of which are being proposed for management. There are three national parks in Wales and two new national parks being created in Scotland. Northern Ireland is probably the only country in the EU which does not have a national park. That speaks for itself. National parks — whose features lend themselves so well to departmental cross-cutting — rejuvenate, yet sustain both the natural and human environment. Therefore we need to examine it quickly.
Although the existing management is doing an excellent job and making considerable progress, because it is under-resourced things tend to happen in a piecemeal fashion at present. Indeed, it lacks effective power to carry out many of its duties, remembering always that the local population consensus is totally behind it.
There are competing pressures on all such beautiful areas between landowners, developers, tourist interests, farmers, rural dwellers and, in this case, fishermen. They all demand a better-resourced co-ordinated effective management plan for the Mournes. National park designation would confer the special status that is required. A local body capable of managing such a park already exists in the form of the Mournes Heritage Trust, which is recognised by the Departments. The Government policy context is supportive through the future strategic planning strategy. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board policy that underpins sustainable and cultural tourism is also on board.
The Environment and Heritage Service, which supports biodiversity and wishes to ensure access to such areas, is also in favour of it. The economic and tourist development strategies of the three district councils, European Union environmental policy and the rural development plan submitted by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to Brussels for European Commission approval all support the key theme of rural regeneration and development through funding for environmentally sensitive areas. Not only is this an environmentally sensitive area, but it is one of the largest less-favoured areas in Northern Ireland.
For all of these reasons, it is both good common sense and a good practical use of our natural resource, and also a requirement to provide a continuing custody of that area, as well as ensuring the economic well-being of the people who live there.
Financing still remains both an objective and an obstacle. I believe that it is an obstacle that the Celtic model of National Park status could overcome with the figures that I have given you. The return on investment, pound for pound, is one of the best deals that one can get. It is much better than stocks and shares or investing in the open market. It may not be apparently returnable in terms of a pound coming out of the Department and four pounds going back into the Department — that is not what happens. But it means that there is that 400% or 900% renewal in the local and regional economy.
Much of the Mournes is already designated as an area of special control. These areas of special control are important, but piecemeal. They have different designations: areas of outstanding natural beauty, areas of special scientific interest and a plethora of other mnemonics. We need a holistic approach to bring all these together along with the human element — the resources and requirements of the people who live and work in the Mournes — and give them an economic future.
I do not want to pre-empt the ministerial response, but I think the system of management that is proposed has the approval — not in writing, but certainly in spirit — of the Department. It is a very interesting and viable practical approach to preserving, developing, using and making profitable that natural resource. The only thing wrong is the hesitancy and reluctance to give it the initial financing.
Legislatively, it would be a very simple matter. It would only require an Order, in consultation with the public and the proposed managers, to have it translated from its present status of management to that of a national park. It would bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the UK and the European Union in terms of national parks with respect to the environment, tourism, the local and regional economy and the local community who live and work there.
I strongly recommend that we take the new initiative to create the specialised tailor-made national park concept known — in the circles that deal with these matters — as the Celtic model, and try to develop it immediately in the Mournes. There will undoubtedly be a resource problem, but the Department of the Environment, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Industry and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development should encourage the proposal.
The £1 million should not have to come from the Department of the Environment alone. There should be greater interdepartmental involvement. If the cost were split between three or four Departments, each would only have to pay £250,000 a year. That investment would have a great return.
In addition, I am sure that a reasonable case could be made for resources from Europe, particularly from the Rural Development Fund. If there is willingness, acceptance and drive, the money can be found on a cross-departmental basis. The total burden should not fall on one Department.
Let us implement the Mournes concept as a pilot scheme. I am sure it will be extremely successful and will provide an enormous boost to the local economy and to the people who work and live in the area. The primary purpose is to open up the area for the tourist influx we are anticipating under the new peace regime while sustaining and protecting that national asset we are selling to tourists. It is important that we achieve a balance between the people who live in the area, tourists and day visitors who come to enjoy the area and the environment.
The plan that the Mournes Heritage Trust has presented to the Department of the Environment — and which it will present to other Departments in the next couple of weeks – is the most professional management plan that I have seen for a long time. I have great confidence that if the trust is given enough encouragement, it will be able to set up Northern Ireland’s first national park. Once that has been shown to be successful and economically productive, the idea can be extended to other areas of Northern Ireland, which have different but equally valuable natural assets to develop for tourism.
While the Assembly cannot vote on this matter, it is hoped that the participation and effort of individual Members inside and outside the Chamber will drive Departments to work together to acquire the modest resources that are needed. Funding is the only obstacle. I have not yet heard any arguments against the concept or the detail of the plan.
I cannot help but compare the position to that of the Department of Education on the issue of museums, when it said that it did not have the necessary resources, so there was no point in formulating policy. The Department continued to say that for 10 years, which was a disastrous way to proceed. These policies should be adopted and the money obtained from somebody’s pocket, be it ours or someone from Europe.
I recommend to the Assembly the unique concept of a Celtic national park that initially will apply to the Mournes and then be extrapolated to other areas.

Mr Jim Wells: I support almost everything the hon Member has said. I want to query only one issue in his entire contribution. We agree, as would MrBradley, that we are privileged to represent what is without doubt the most scenic constituency in NorthernIreland. I have had the occasional debate with my party leader on that issue, but in terms of overall scenic quality, nothing compares with SouthDown. Most of the constituency comprises the Mournes area of outstanding natural beauty. Walking in the Mournes is one of my pleasures, and I recall some wonderful sunny days walking up the Brandy Pad and the Annalong Valley and climbing LowerCove or BenCrom — some of the most wonderful peaks in the Mournes. I adore the area. I am a former member of the Mournes Advisory Council and a current member of Friends of the Mournes. Like Mr McGrady, I am absolutely committed to its protection.
If the Mournes region were in any other part of the world, it would be a national park. When conservationists visit NorthernIreland and ask where our national parks are, they are astounded when we guiltily admit that we do not have any. It is extraordinary. Even more extraordinary is the fact that the legislation to establish national parks in NorthernIreland has been in place for 35years. The enabling legislation is the Amenity Lands Act (NorthernIreland) 1965, which was replicated in the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (NorthernIreland) Order 1985. This is not even a matter of legislation: the Assembly has the power to establish national parks.
The idea of national parks was followed up in 1965, and a civil servant was sent out to Fermanagh to test the reaction. I heard a rather amusing story about that. Many farmers disagreed with the idea because they felt that national parks were parks for Nationalists. Needless to say, that suggestion was erroneous. National parks were not for Nationalists, but for the entire community. However, some of the farming community became confused about what national parks meant and there was some opposition to them. The idea was gently shelved.
However, national parks were debated at great length during consultations on the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (NorthernIreland) Order 1985 and I remember that there was a tremendous push to establish a structure that would enable the effective management of our areas of great scenic quality. Sadly, nothing happened.
Here we are, 15 years later, and still there is no structure in place. That is not to decry the excellent work done by the Mournes Heritage Trust and its predecessor, the Mournes Advisory Council, or the district councils and all the community groups involved with managing the Mournes. However, we do not yet have the overarching structure to provide adequate management for the Mournes.
Members may think that the Mournes is an attractive area, but it is under enormous pressure such as that which is undoubtedly caused by intense recreational use. The large number of walkers causes serious erosion. Sometimes there is overgrazing although, ironically, the ban on sheep grazing caused by the outbreak of cryptosporidium may take us to the other extreme. There may not be enough grazing in the Mournes, and the nature conservation value of the area may decline because there would not be sufficient grazing to maintain the quality of the area’s flora.
There is unsympathetic development in the Mournes. Many farmers are under such enormous economic pressures that they have been forced to try to obtain planning permission for bungalows for as many sites as possible. Some bungalows are well designed and are in keeping with the Mournes landscape, but others are not. The pressure on the planners is becoming greater as they are being pushed to give planning permission, thereby providing farmers with income. That will only lead to further unsympathetic development.
I am very concerned about the impact of the landfill tax. It is a good concept, but it has led to the filling in of a lot of small wetlands in the Mournes area with inert hardcore infill. Developers and waste disposal operators do not want to pay landfill tax, which they would have to if they took waste to a registered site. Therefore it is tempting to open up the hedge and cover a small wetland with rubble. The result is that such areas are completely destroyed from the nature conservation perspective.
There are many pressures, but perhaps the most notable at present is the drastic decline in farming incomes in the Mournes. Like the rest of NorthernIreland, farmers in the Mournes have faced an incredible reduction in their net incomes of at least 90%.
Most farmers in the Mournes are running at a loss. Many of them are at the edge of viability anyhow. The 90% fall in incomes, combined with the impact of the sheep-grazing ban, is going to have a devastating effect on those communities.
The only hope for the long-term sustainable future of the Mournes is some form of eco-tourism, which does not lead to the reduction of the ecological value of the area. The difficulty is that there are a whole series of government bodies, district councils and quangos, each of which has responsibility for a bit of the Mournes.
The Rivers Agency is responsible for drainage. Environment and Heritage Service is responsible for the areas of special scientific interest, the area of outstanding natural beauty and the designation of nature reserves. The Department of Agriculture and Regional Development is responsible for the implementation of the environmentally sensitive area and less-favoured area schemes. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board is involved in the promotion of the area to incoming visitors. There is no body, scheme or system that enables holistic, coherent policy implementation to be brought in and activated in the Mournes.
I believe that a model is needed. It may not be exactly like a national park; I agree with the hon Member that an adapted version might be appropriate. We might argue about the phrase "the celtic model", but I know why it is called that, and I know it is not an attempt to make a political point. I would prefer to call it the Ulster model or the Northern Ireland Model, but we will not argue over semantics. We need to have some structure that can deliver what the Mournes so seriously need.
All we really need is £1·2 million. That sounds like a lot of money, but we all welcomed the substantial increase in funding that the Department secured in the Budget statement. That is long overdue. There may well be sufficient funds within that increased budget, in conjunction with other Departments, to enable a proportion to be allocated to the Mournes.
We are not talking about an awful lot of money; we are talking about 80p per annum for every man, woman and child in this Province. Is that too much to spend on the maintenance of what is clearly one of our most scenic areas? I see enormous benefits in a proposal to have some form of management structure for the Mournes, in terms of both the economic well-being of the area and the protection of the environment.
The lesson has been learned throughout the rest of the United Kingdom and — dare I say it? — in the Irish Republic, where four national parks have been designated. It has been clearly shown that there have been enormous economic benefits from the designation and the management, as well as the protection of the environment. I believe that if we go forward with this proposal and give the Department the support that it needs to implement it, it could be used as a best example that could be duplicated elsewhere.
We are very fortunate in Northern Ireland to have some of the most outstanding areas of natural beauty in the United Kingdom. The north Antrim coast, the Glens, Fermanagh, the Sperrins, and what I feel to be one of the most underrated areas of all, Benevenagh in north Londonderry. They are all outstanding areas.
If we get it right in the Mournes, we can go forward to implement a similar structure throughout the Province. My final point is that where we score, as far as the Mournes are concerned, is that a huge proportion of the central part of the Mournes is Government- owned. It is owned by the Department for Regional Development. Therefore there is some direct departmental control over it, and we can implement policies much more easily in that situation.
If we develop a structure that is suitable for Northern Ireland and take it out to the farming community and the district councils, I am sure we will get their support, particularly if we can show the leverage effect. The economic benefits that will accrue from that will bring real sustainable employment to the Mournes as well as protection.
The situation in the agricultural community is so stark at the moment that anything that can be offered to bring about genuine increases in their incomes will be more than welcome. I see enormous merit in what Mr McGrady is suggesting. I can assure him that we can provide cross-community support for these suggestions. Throughout the Mourne community, all sections of the community will say that this is an idea whose time has come. Let us go forward together and do something very positive for that community.

Mr Pat McNamee: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The brevity of the title of the Adjournment debate gives a lot of scope as to what we talk about regarding the future of the Mournes, whether we are talking about its geographical, ecological or environmental features, its communities, or its economy. What is going to have a major impact on all of these is the area plan that will govern the Mournes. Part of that plan will be determined by Newry and Mourne District Council and, no doubt, by Down District Council.
In order to sustain any area, you have to sustain the communities that live in it. The Mournes is a largely rural area, and it is difficult for people who live in it to build homes. People who come from farming backgrounds and whose ancestors have worked the land are finding it increasingly difficult to acquire planning permission to build houses and to live on their own family farm. I acknowledge the need for control of the development of housing in rural areas, particularly in an area of outstanding natural beauty such as the Mournes, but the pressure and restrictions on planning permissions has increased the value and the scarcity of sites. Certainly in the Newry and Mourne district prices have increased by more than 200%, in some cases in as short a period as two years. This means that young people who are indigenous to rural areas such as the Mournes simply can not afford to buy property. The net result is that younger people are moving out of their rural communities and into towns and cities while better-off people, who are wealthy enough to purchase the sites, are moving in. So there is a breakdown in terms of the rural community itself. The area plan, which is under consultation, needs to take on board the issue of future housing provision in rural areas. There needs to be a preference towards the indigenous population. At the same time the rural environment must be protected.
The Mourne Mountains have a largely unspoiled natural beauty. I often hear people talking about Killarney, Wicklow, Connemara, north Antrim, the Giant’s Causeway and Mayo, but anyone who sings the praises of those places, without visiting the Mournes, should take a hike —a hike along the Trassey track, up through Hare’s Gap, round the Brandy Pad, over the side of Slieve Donard and down into Newcastle. It took me quite some time to walk through it, and I must say I have not met any other Assembly Members during my visits there. However, there is no doubt that it is an area of outstanding natural beauty that is practically unknown in Ireland, let alone in other places. It has a tremendous tourism potential, but it needs better road and transport infrastructure.
Another element is the proposal building of a road bridge link at Narrow Water, connecting the Carlingford peninsula and Warrenpoint and leading to the Mournes. This would have a major impact on linking up tourist routes in the South and that would work both ways. The Mournes must be given consideration. The link would open up a tourist avenue that would benefit both sides of Carlingford Lough. Not only would it help to advance tourism, it would also be a strategic transport link for the economic development of the Mournes area in general.
One of the main economic assets in the Mournes area is the port of Warrenpoint. Any future development is restricted because of the traffic congestion in Newry. Traffic from the north must travel through Newry to reach Warrenpoint. Many heavy goods vehicles, whether coming from the North or the South, travel through Newry to reach Warrenpoint. The construction of a road bridge link at Narrow Water would open up the potential for a future road link with the Dublin-Belfast route south of Newry.
As well as promoting tourism, this could further promote the economy. As a large rural area, the Mournes depends heavily on agriculture. I will not rehash previous Assembly discussions about the crises affecting farmers, not just in the Mournes but also in other areas, issues including BSE, the pig industry and the price of sheep. Giving sheep away was almost more economical than keeping them.
The area plans must also consider the future of the Mournes. It is crucial to focus on giving farmers leeway in matters such as farm diversification. In rural areas like the Mournes, planning restriction can prevent farm diversification because farmers do not get the necessary permission for such developments.
Traditional farming in the Mournes and in many rural areas throughout Ireland maintains the nature of our countryside. Overgrazing and undergrazing have just been mentioned. We must consider the future if farmers abandon land in the Mournes and the surrounding area. We do sometimes not recognise the non-remunerative work that farmers do in preserving the very nature of rural Ireland. Generations of farmers have given us the environment that we now have. Farming is currently not economically viable, and some farmers are being forced to leave the land. Eventually, the nature of rural Ireland as we know it may disappear, and disappear at a great cost.
Today the Programme for Government was launched. I hope that the specifics of the final draft and of the next Budget will give due weight to the need to support the agriculture industry. I am not only concerned about the effects on the agricultural and rural communities, but also about the long-term effect on the rural nature of the environment as we know it in Ireland, and particularly in the Mournes. If the economic future of the Mournes is to be viable, the plan for that area must address the potential of a road bridge link at Narrow Water. If we are to secure the environmental future of the Mournes we must address the crisis in farming. If we are to safeguard the future of rural and agricultural communities, the area plan must take into consideration the issues which I raised about the strategic planning framework for the Mournes area. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Bradley, may I remind you that our time is limited to one hour? I would like to give the Minister an opportunity to respond.

Mr P J Bradley: It is easy for us all to identify with national parks. If we are lucky enough to go on foreign travel, the first thing a lot of us look for is a brochure to identify the national parks. They are undoubtedly an asset, and if we have one in our own area, so much the better. Coming from a council background, I am tempted to look at the detrimental effects, and it is easy to envisage it just as a planning issue. In his presentation, Eddie McGrady used words such as "consultation" and "balance". If this national park materialises, its proper implementation will derive from those factors.
In my maiden speech in the Assembly, I referred to the problems that authentic applicants in the Mournes were experiencing with planning permission. The administration of the national park concept could include proper legislation allowing for those people to be considered.
Great hopes for rural Northern Ireland were expressed in this morning’s programme for Government. The rural population of our villages and townlands will be catered for at both higher education level and on the farm. We thought young farmers might leave their farms in the future. If the Government encouraged them to stay at home, it would step up demand for additional housing. Who would choose to be a Minister at this stage, trying to achieve such an intricate balance? The area plan contains proposals to look at our hamlets and the closes. The very old maps of the Mournes show many addresses as closes. In my area I can think of Magee’s Close, Fagan’s Close, O’Hagan’s Close — all clusters of four to six houses. If we decide to regenerate in the future, our plans must accommodate the people who will carry out the regeneration. Perhaps the Minister will examine the idea of hamlets and closes to see how they could be facilitated.
If the benefits of a national park are properly harnessed, everyone will be the better for it — the indigenous population, their offspring for generations to come, and tourists and visitors. I will conclude with Eddie McGrady’s two words "consultation" and "balance". We need to get those things right.

Mr Sam Foster: I commend Mr McGrady and the other Members who have taken part. They seem to have a great love for the Mournes, and that is very commendable. They have presented a good case, but it is wrong to suggest that others have no interest in the Mournes. Different groupings have great interest in the Mournes, and I will expand on that shortly.
There are differing reactions across the Province, so such issues can be difficult. I come from Fermanagh, where the council members were frightened of having designations in case they would inhibit planning in their area. Members, and Mr McGrady in particular, have raised issues relating to the management of the Mournes and the well-being of the people who live there. I agree with the importance of integrated management, and this can be achieved through the present arrangements. An example is the joint approach by the Departments and the Mourne Heritage Trust, which I will refer to later. I will summarise the general background.
The Mourne Mountains, and the farmed landscape and coastline that surround them, are important to the people of Northern Ireland and particularly to the people who live near them. They are important environmentally, economically and culturally. My Department has recognised this by designating the Mournes/Slieve Croob area as an area of outstanding natural beauty on account of the landscape value and the recreational value of this beautiful area.
The Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 allows the Department to take measures for the management of such areas and to promote their enjoyment by the public. The Mournes were the first area designated under that legislation, and since 1984 — even before the designation — the Department has committed staff and resources to tasks associated with environmental management and recreation in the area.
In recent years we have become increasingly aware of the changing nature of the management of special landscapes throughout Europe and particularly in the United Kingdom. In all such areas it has become fundamentally important not only to facilitate proper sustainable management and public enjoyment, but also to do so in ways that involve and empower local communities. It is very important to involve local communities.
Sustainable use for tourism and recreation brings benefits to the local economy, particularly at a time when traditional agriculture is under great pressure. With this in mind, my Department took the lead in establishing the Mourne Heritage Trust. We have subsequently been the main funders of the body, providing almost half its running costs. I welcome the additional support that has been given by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the three district councils in the area.
It is wrong to say that the area is being ignored — it is not; we think about it very much. The trust and its performance over the first three years of its life are currently the subject of an evaluation by consultants. While this review is not yet complete, I can tell Members that it has shown the trust to have been effective in raising the profile of local environmental issues and in delivering an area-based strategy for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. However, the review has also identified several issues that must now be addressed. The trust should address some of these, such as the need to work more directly on habitat creation and nature conservation issues. Other issues have wider implications that will need to be addressed in due course not only by my Department, but by other Departments and by the Assembly. I refer to matters such as the adequate resourcing of the trust for a continuing and increasing rural regeneration role, and the issue of matching funding being made available for larger projects.
Such issues also impinge on the consideration of national park status. National parks in England and Wales, and more recently in Scotland, have undergone the evolution to which I referred earlier. They have moved from a largely conservation agenda to one of the sustainable use of the environment — a process involving, and benefiting, local people. Such parks are well funded by subvention grants from the exchequer. The detail of the recently announced national parks for Scotland is not yet known. However, the national parks in England and Wales have a constitution, board membership and operational powers, including planning. These are all approved by Parliament.
It is important for the Assembly to consider what is right and appropriate on such matters as they relate specifically to Northern Ireland. The idea of declaring the Mournes a national park, however deserving of that status they may be, cannot be implemented without full and proper consideration of the implications. Resourcing, mandate and detailed operational matters all have to be closely considered. To do otherwise would be unwise and very much premature.
In considering a form of national park designation for the Mournes, we need to examine the implications for other areas. We also need to assess the capacity of the infrastructure to handle extra visitors, and to look in detail at any management arrangements and the resulting resource implications.
I recently met Mr McGrady and officers of the Mourne Heritage Trust to consider the national park issue. There is no doubt that there are arguments in favour, subject to what I have said about full and proper consideration. As a result, I have asked my Department to consider this issue and the designation of the remaining Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, bearing in mind the fact that this programme is only half complete. My officials will report to me as soon as possible. I will, of course, consult widely on any proposals I decide to put forward.
None of this detracts from the value and importance of the Mournes and the need to sustain that environment and its communities. The Mourne Heritage Trust has provided very valuable and effective help in this regard. I certainly intend that my Department should continue to support such activities by the trust at a level appropriate to our resources.
The complexity of rural issues and the fact that these come within the remit of a number of Departments requires close co-ordination between Ministers and between their officials. This is happening, and work is under way to devise programmes for the next round of EU funding, notably the national resource rural tourism programme led by the Department for Agriculture and Rural Development. The Mournes, along with other protected landscape areas, will be very well placed to benefit from this.
Finally, I would like to express my appreciation of Mr McGrady’s continued interest and support in this very important area of my Department’s work. I appreciate it very much.
Adjourned at 7.27 pm.